CC MIN 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. : .�� :}6 9 AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) WRITTEN COhMUNICATIONS (continued) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (continued) 28. (continued) In response to request for comparisons of benefits of retirees on PERS compared to Social Security, Mr. Anderson said he would attempt to provide such information. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ � SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND PUBLIC HEARINGS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Presentation of Plaque for Distinguished Mayor Barrett presented the Plaque for Dis- �. Service to the Reverend Ratph T. Daniel, tinguished Service to the Rev. Ralph T. Daniel former member of the Library Board for his service on the Library Board, noting the Rev. Daniel has served the City in many other ways also and is invaribly willing to offer his assistance whenever it is requested and the entire comnunity is indebted to him. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ 2. Public Hearing - Appeal of the decision of Report of City Manager 5/3/79 the Acting Building Official re revocation Report of Acting Building Official 5/3/79 of sign permit, Alpha Beta, 2150 Roosevelt Avenue - Dick Robillard, Electrical Mayor Barrett declared open at 7:55 p.m. Products Corporation, appellant City Clerk advfsed that the written notice to the appellant is the only notice required. City Attorney Schricker stated that the appeal is taken from the March 14, 1979 decision of the Acting Building Off,icial and the docunents related thereto are a part of the record. Jim Cassid , representing Electrical Products orporat on and Alpha Beta, 15247 Via Pinto, Monte Sereno, referred to the appeal letter of April 3, 1979 written by Dick Robillard of Electrical Products Corporation. Mr. Cassidy acknowledged that the sub3ect sign was not erected in accordance with the conditions of the sign permit and that the fault belonged to the sign company. He advised that there was � no intent to violate the sign ordinance, but that the field crew had erred. He advised that the sign has not been altered to meet the � permit requirements, but that the appeal had been made to determine if Council would allow the nonconforming sign. Mr. Cassidy suggested that the present sign is more attractive than what the sign ordinance requires. It was pointed out that the appeal letter states that the sign company wishes "to take exception to the method of computing the sign area and individual component spacing as out- lined in Section 3.62" of the City Code. In response to question of Mr. Schricker, Mr. Cassidy acknowledged that the specifications are clear and the ordina�ce was interpreted properly. In response to Mr. Cassidy's suggestion that he believed the approval of the Architectural Corrmittee of the sign included size, Planning Reg.Mtg. 5/7/79 Page 2 �+ � f 1 `