Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.40 <br /> <br />TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1985 <br /> <br />Pursuant to duly-published public notice, Council conducted a public <br /> <br />hearing for the purpose of amending Section X, Signs, of the Zoning <br /> <br />Ordinance regarding size, height and location in the Professional and <br /> <br />Residential-Professional districts. <br /> <br />There were several citizens present <br /> <br />who spoke regarding this amendment and how it would affect them. George <br /> <br />Cox of 1038 Owens Road, representing 225 Starling Avenue, asked some <br /> <br />questions but seemed satisfied with the proposed changes after hearing <br /> <br />them explained. <br /> <br />A. C. Hall of 103 Oakland Drive in Collinsville, <br /> <br />representing his business at 807 Starling Avenue, was concerned that if he <br /> <br />moved his sign 15 feet from the road, which is now 1 foot from the road, <br /> <br />that it could not be seen over the wall and hedges of the property on one <br /> <br />side and an embankment on the other. Also, 15 feet back would be in the <br /> <br />middle of his paved drive, therefore, he would have to place it further <br /> <br />back. He noted that he and others on Starling had made a lot of <br /> <br />improvements to the area by the renovation of the old homes into <br /> <br />businesses and felt <br /> <br />they <br /> <br />should be given every consideration in <br /> <br />advertising their business. Mr. Hall stated that he brought greetings <br /> <br />from Dr. Fred B. Caffey of 407 Starling Avenue who could not be present <br /> <br />for the meeting, but that he was also concerned about having to move his <br /> <br />sign. Mrs. A. C. Hall spoke in behalf of their business and asked that <br /> <br />they be given favorable consideration, noting that about 500 feet up the <br /> <br />street was a Commercial block which had signs right on the sidewalks and <br /> <br />25-30 feet in the air. In consideration of this the Council expressed <br /> <br />their own concerns about an amendment to this section in 1980 that gave <br />