Laserfiche WebLink
<br />173 <br />Regular Council Meeting <br />6/20/94 <br />Page Thirteen <br />1VIr. BasiTe said he was the only one who opposed it. <br />Mr. Diemert said yes; Architectural Review BoarcY recommended approval. <br />(D Mayor Rinker said the letter height was overall in proportion to the size of the building, <br />M regardless of where you put it. <br />(Y) <br />< ROLL CALL: AYES: Mr. Busa, Mrs. Cinco, Mr. Ferrante, Mr. Fixler, Mr. Flynn, and <br />z Mr. Stephens <br />? NAYS: Mr. Basile Motion Carried <br />Variance Granted <br />1'rogressive Variance Request - IZooftop Location (of sign) <br />Mr. Fixler, seconded by Mr. Ferrante, made a motion to grant a variance to allow a sign <br />to be located above the roof line. <br />Mr. Diemert said Planning and Zoning turned the request down 5 to one. He believes <br />the Architectural Review Board recommended it. It is 71' above grade. The letters <br />themselves would be on top of the roof as opposed to below the roof line. The code <br />allows letters to the roof line. <br />A lengthy discussion was held regarding the clear definition of the height of the <br />building and the definition of coping. <br />Mr. Samac said the area where they want to place it is the coping; it is actually where <br />the screening is for equipment. <br />Mr. Chokel explained that the letters will go on a wall and there is a coping on that wall; <br />these letters are under the coping. <br />Mr. Samac saicl he loolced at this at the Caucus Meeting. If Mr. Chokel stands on that <br />statement, then the entire height of the building is in violation of the code and should be <br />removed because they violated the variance that was granted to them to build the <br />building. <br />Mr. Diemert said he does know that they need to debate that because if what Mr. <br />Chokel says is true, then they do not need a variance. Then, they would be able to do it <br />and then we can debate among us.