Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Childs informed the Commission that the applicant had a schedule conflict and was <br />unable to attend the meeting, and that they did not request postponement even though the <br />option had been given to them. He also stated that the initial application that had been <br />distributed to the Commission had not met requirements of the Sign Code; however, the <br />applicant had since made revisions, and the final submittal received by the Department on <br />this day made the proposal in compliance. <br />Commissioner Power made a motion to deny the application, commenting that the <br />applicant should be present atthe meeting, and therefore they should resubmit their <br />revised application to be agendized on a future meeting. Commissioner Au Hoy <br />seconded the motion. Mr. Mark clarified actions the Commission could take in this type <br />of situation, specifically denial as opposed to deferral. Mr. Childs suggested that the <br />Commission consider the fact that the applicant had been trying to comply with the Sign <br />Code, and that if the application were denied, rather than deferred, and re-submittal were <br />required, it would delay their effort to open a new business even further. Commissioner <br />Dunlap opined that the applicant’s intent to comply with requirements was apparent, and <br />that he would like to welcome their new business to the community. Commissioner <br />Power withdrew his motion, but said that he still felt the applicant or their representative <br />should have been present at this meeting, and therefore he could not support a simple <br />deferral. Commissioner Au Hoy then withdrew her second as well. <br />It was then moved by Commissioner Hetherington, and seconded by Commissioner <br />Dunlap, to defer action in order to afford the Commissioners reasonable time to review <br />the revised proposal. A roll call vote was taken and the motion carried with four ayes <br />(Hetherington, Dunlap, Au Hoy, and Stanbro), one no (Power) and three absent and <br />excused (Herbert, Kitchens and Saito). <br />ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS <br />1.Approval of Minutes of the Meetingsof March 8, 2011. <br />It was moved by Commissioner Hetherington and seconded by Commissioner Dunlap <br />that the minutes be approved as submitted. Motion was unanimously carried by a voice <br />vote of all Commissioners in attendance. <br />ANNOUNCEMENTS <br />Mr. Mark announced that the next meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2011. <br />In response to Commissioner Dunlap’s concern about the Sign Code amendment process that <br />had been going on for some time, the Chair asked the staff to place the matter on the next <br />available meeting agenda and invite appropriate personnel of the Department of Public Works. <br />3 <br /> <br />