|
<br /> .
<br /> .
<br /> Minutes of the Regular Council MeetinR, October 12, 1987
<br /> Page 2
<br /> CASE #87-30 (Cont'dl Moved by Peck, seconded by Winiecki, that Council
<br /> approve Case No. 87-30, Special Use Permit for Rooftop
<br /> Sign, 3628 Connelly Street, Transportation Electronics, for one southerly
<br /> facing sign on the roof, not be exceed 8 ft. 6 in. from the top of the building
<br /> height, and a maximum of 20 ft. in width, and, furthermore, that the Special
<br /> Use Permit remain in effect until such time as Transportation Electronics .
<br /> vacates the premises.
<br /> Hansen moved to amend the motion, seconded by Peck,
<br /> that the rationale as stated in the Planning Commission minutes of 10/7/87, for
<br /> approval, be noted and approved by Council and that the motion include the
<br /> contingency that the applicant extend the mansard roof treatment on the west
<br /> side of the building to the south side of the building.
<br /> Hansen moved to further amend the motion, seconded by
<br /> Woodburn, that the height total, including the building and sign, be reduced by
<br /> 2 ft.
<br /> Second amendment to the motion failed. (Hansen, Woodburn voting in favor; Peck
<br /> and Winiecki opposed) (2-2)
<br /> First amendment to the motion carried unanimously. (4-0)
<br /> The original motion as amended failed. (Peek, Woodburn voting in favor; Hansen
<br /> and Winiecki opposed) (2-2)
<br /> Moved by Winiecki, seconded by Woodburn, that Council .
<br /> approve Case No. 87-30. Special Use Permit for Rooftop Sign, 3628 Connelly
<br /> Street, Transportation Electronics, for the placement of one rooftop sign,
<br /> facing in a southerly direction, not to exceed 5 ft. in height, nor a total
<br /> height inclusive of building and sign of 19 ft., rationale for approval based
<br /> on the obscurity of the bUilding, it's relationship to other businesses in the
<br /> area, the extension of the mansard roof which prohibits placement of the sign
<br /> On the business facia, and the feasibility of this solution given the limited
<br /> setback and unusual visibility conditions. Furthermore, that Council approval
<br /> is contingent upon the applicant extending the mansard roof treatment on the
<br /> west side of the building to the south side of the building, and that the
<br /> Special Use Permit shall remain in effect until such time as Transportation
<br /> Electronics vacates the premises. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0)
<br /> HWY 96 STUDY Council was referred to the Planning Commission minutes
<br /> COMM. REPORT of 10-7-87 and the Subcommittee report relative to the
<br /> Highway 96 Task Force Study for beautification of
<br /> Highway 96 (see attached Exhibit "A").
<br /> Planner Miller reviewed the responses to the Task Force letter of 9/10/87 and
<br /> the General Issues discussed by Planning Commission as outlined in Exhibit "A".
<br /> Councilmember Hansen suggested Council strongly supported the upgrading of .
<br /> Highway 96 and encourage the Task Force to continue the excellent work on this
<br /> project.
<br /> Mayor Woodburn discussed with the Planner the possibility of Highway 96 being
<br /> made a 4-lane highway thru all the communities and recommended that the
<br /> following language be included under Responses to Letter of September 10, 1987,
<br /> under Item //3" (b): "... as part of the County Trail System.
<br /> Council concurred with Mayor's recommendation and accepted the Subcommittee
<br /> report; they directed the Clerk Administrator to forward copies of the Council
<br /> and Planning Commission minutes to the Task Force Study Committee with their
<br /> approval of the recommendations and responses.
<br /> CASE #87-28, SUP Council was referred to a letter from Attorney Lynden,
<br /> RADIO ANTENNA, 1541 10-7-87, regarding Mr. Kahnke's proposal to alter the
<br /> EDGEWATER, KAHNKE design of the antenna which was approved by the Council
<br /> at their meeting of 9/14/87.
<br /> The Attorney advised Council that he had been in contact with Kahnke's attorney
<br /> and had reviewed an FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order dated 9/16/85. Lynden .
<br /> explained that Special Ccndition #4, of the Council approval, may be contrary
<br /> to the mandates of the FCC Order. He noted that, from a procedural standpoint,
<br /> the Council may determine whether or not such alterations to the design are
<br /> significant enough as to warrant another public hearing.
<br />
|