pf_02197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

George C. Brandt, Case No. 2197 Page 2 and aerial photo} and prepared a simple site plan showing the property. The photos we took and the site sketch we prepared clearly show that signs meeting the provisions of the sign ordinance could be erected on site and still be reasonably visible. We explained this conclusion to Mr. Brandt in the attached letter and drawings of April 16. In a follow-up phone call to Mr. Brandt on April 25, he indicated that he didn't see any point in appearing before the Planning Commission when the City's consultant had made a clear recommendation for denial of the variance. We invited him to come to the meeting to make his case, but he said he would just "leave it as it is". It is our impression that he understands that the sign is in violation of the ordinance and he will wait for the City code enforcement staff to order him to move or remove it. Throughout this process we have made clear to Mr. Brandt what the process was and what information was needed. At each turn, he has chosen not to participate fully or has expressed uncertainty as to what was required. city staff then assisted him in gathering information well beyond what we have done for most other applicants. When the information appeared to support denial of the variance, he indicated he will wait for the city to act. 2 . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION We do not expect the applicant to appear at the Whether he does or not, we believe the information in the letter of April 16 and our planning report support denial of the variance It is our opinion that a further continuance will us any closer to a satisfactory resolution of the meeting. attached previous request. not move issue.