CC 05-11-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting May 11, 19~1 ~ A aketch of the proposed sign was shown by Dave Shannon, Leroy Sign Co. The sign was described as a 3-faced internally luminated time and temperature pylon sign which meets all the requirementa of Ord. 216 (aign ordinance). Shannon noted that the sign waa de- signed to meet the ordinance requirements. In discuasion re eventual aetback when Lexington Avenue is improved, Miller aaid the sign ia now 38' to 40' from the curb; after improve- ment of Lexington, estimated sign would be sbout 28' from the curb. McAllister moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the 17' setback variance for the pylon sign, as long as the mature treea remain. In further discussion, Hollenhorst said the propoaed sign does not .. appeal to her; prefers the existing low-key sign. McAllister said she likes the idea of "time and temperature". Woodburn suggeated that the sign appears too large-so close to the road; suggested that it be re-designed to a smaller scale. Shannon said the sign proposed is as small as it can be to contain the power pack to operate the time and temperature. Johnson suggested that an alternative of two small aigns might be a conaideration to reduce the mass. Motion did not carry (McAllister, Johnson voting in favor of the motion; Hollenhorst, Woodburn voting in opposition.) Case No. 80-19, Final Plat - McClunR Second Addition Council was referred to the proposed Final Plat of McClung Second Addition which Miller reported is identical to the approved Pre- liminary Plat. Miller reported that the Planning Commission recom- mends Council approval, as submitted. Johnson moved, seconded by Hollenhorst, that Council approve the Final Plat of McClung Second Addition, contingent upon: 1. Execution of the Development Agreement and receipt of Letter of Credit, 2. Resolution of park dedication prior to occupancy of the first house. Motion carried unanimously. (It was Council's and Mc.Clung's understanding that a achedule for payment of the park dedication will be devised at time of resolu- tion of the park dedication.) Case No. 81-9, Special Use Permit - Wind Generator Council was referred to Planning Memo (4-22-81) Board of Appeals report (5-4-81) and Planning Commission recommendation (Minutes of 5-6-81). Miller explained that the proposed tower is considered to be an "acceasory use other than normal" requiring a Special Use Permit; reported that neighborhood input at the hearing revealed concern re aafety, noise, aesthetics and possible liability to the City if tower should topple or cause injury or damage from flying blades, should they splinter or break. .. Miller reported that the Planning Commission unanimously recom- mends denial of the Special Use Permit for the wind generator, based on the concerns of the neighborhood. Miller noted that he ia uncertain of the conclusiona of the Board of Appeals, Lambroa addressed the objectiona and commenta made at the Public Hearing and read three letters from neighbors immediately adjacent to hia property (Belknap, Johnaon and Mondry) favoring the pro- posed wind generator. Lambroa aaid he feels alternate energy aya- tems should be encouraged; did not foresee any objection when application was made; explained that chances are, should the tower -4-