CC 11-12-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , . Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, November 12, 1985 Page five upon: (1) Approval of final landscaping and lighting plan by the City Planner. (2) Approval of final grading plan by City Engineer. (3) Submission and approval of signage plan prior to building occupancy if required by Ordinance. (4) Verification of screening of mechanical equipment by City Planner. (5) Resolution of park dedication prior to occupancy of first building. (6) Filing of Final Plat, or exacution of a development agreement relative to street and utilities, prior to issuance of the sacond building permit. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) . Traffic Study Miller reported that the Planning Commission recommends that the City initiate a traffic study relative to the industrial area potential development and its impact on Lexington Avenue and Highway 51 traffic; noted that how to handle left turns efficiently is the primary concern. Miller reported that the Opus traffic study included this entire industrial area, as proposed to develop at the present time. Council took the recommendation under advisement. Case No. 85-20, Si~n Variances - Two Temporary Construction Si~ns - North HeiRhts Lutheran Church Miller reported that the two construction signs installed on the NHLC site exceed the 32 square foot maximum size required by ordinance; reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval of the 96 square foot sign fronting on Highway 96; reported the Board of Appeals recommends approval of the sign fronting on Highway 10 (192 square feet) based on the fact'the sign is temporary, but recommends the residents across Highway 10 be contacted relative to impact of the sign, prior to Council action. Miller reported the Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance for the Highway 10 sign because of adverse effect on the residential area across Highway 10. Miller explained that the 32 square foot maximum was, in his opinion, meant for collector or local streets; reported he does not believe highway signs were a consideration when the ordinance was drafted; feels a degree of variance is warranted based on the wide right-of-way, traffic speed and the large site; suggested it may have been the committee's reasoning that highway signs may be dealt with on a variance basis. Mr. Arlo Lien, (NHLC) , presented pictures of the signs fronting on Highway 96 and on Highway 10, and copies of the telephone survey of Highway 10 residents, indicating 13 - no objections 2 - objecting 2 - could not contact Lien said they were unaware of the requirements for temporary construction signs; noted the signs were designed by their architect to inform passersby of the development under construction; size of signs was determined by the architect based on the site size, traffic speed and setback. Mayor Woodburn read comments from a telephone survey made by a resident (not the applicant) which indicated objections from more than two residents. . In discussion, the length of time the signs are proposed at these locations was estimated by Lien to be October or November, 1986. It was noted that the Highway 10 sign is huge, but the site is also huge. Sather moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council grant an area variance for the two temporary construction signs as they stand. Motion did not carry (Sather and Hansen voting in favor of the motion; Woodburn and Peck voting in opposition) (2-2) Lien asked if the two signs could be exchanged, the larger sign facing Highway 96. Consensus of Council was that the larger sign is too large for either location.