Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Manager said the Thunderbird motel had been issued <br />a permit and would be installing a conforming sign. Plans of FirstNational~~k were <br />not known, but it was believed their sign did conform to the Code. <br /> <br />In answer to Councilman Murray, Mr. James cited specific sections of the Code setting <br />out criteria for granting variances. He recounted the reasons he thought a variance <br />,should be granted - conforming sign on Coburg Road behind the setback area would be <br />blocked from view by First Na:tional Bank building resulting in economic loss of the <br />cost value of the existing sign and from drop in business from inadequate advertising <br />i'by the conforming sign. A plot plan was shown and location of proposed signs pointed out. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to deny the appeal and adopt by <br />reference thereto the findings supporting the denial as set forth in the Sign <br />Code Board of Appeals minutes of November 19, 1973 on file in the City Re- <br />corder's office. <br /> <br />0548 <br /> <br />Councilman McDonald asked whether code provisions covered instances of signs being <br />blocked by buildings on adjacent properties, or 'when construction of a new building <br />blocked an already existing sign on adjacent property. Manager answered that the Code <br />did allow business identity signs to be located at the property line, even with some <br />overhang in some cases so it could be seen. He didn't believe there was, any provision <br />for denying the full use of property because of signs on adjoining properties. Build- <br />ings may be located as close to the property line as setbacks allow without regard for <br />signs on adjacent buildings. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members <br />present voting aye, except Mr. Williams abstaining. <br /> <br />058. <br /> <br />B. Rezoning from AG (Agricultural) to RA (Suburban Residential) the area west of Danebo <br />Street at north end of Candlelight Drive (Gilbert)(Z-74-1) <br />Planning Commission on January 8, 1974 recommended rezoning this property in conformance <br />with abutting properties (RA). Copies of January 8, 1974 Planning Commission minutes <br />and staff notes were previously distributed to Council members. <br /> <br />0591 <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />Jim Keefe, 1189 Fairfield Drive, representing the petitioner, supported the position <br />of the Planning staff and findings of the Commission.. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. <br /> <br />Council Bill No. 446 - Rezoning to RA Suburban Residential the area located west of <br />Danebo Street at north end of Candlelight Drive was read by <br />council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting <br />that it be read in full. . <br /> <br />0632 <br /> <br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that findings supporting the rezoning as <br />set forth in Planning Commission minutes and staff notes of January 8, 1974.~e,adopted <br />by reference thereto and filed in the City Recorder's office; that the bill be read the <br />second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and <br />that enactment be considered at this time. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />In answer to questions from Councilman Murray, Jim Saul of the planning department ex- <br />plained that a request for development of the property for a mobile home park to accom- <br />modate 333 to 341 spaces had been filed and was scheduled for hearing before the Hear- <br />ings Official on February 14. He said the Commission specifically stated that affirma- <br />tive action on the zone change was not to be construed as tacit approval of the mobile <br />home park. Staff had recommended denial of the mobile home park because of design prob- <br />lems and other factors. Mr. Ray Ackerman, Bethel School District, answered Mr. Murray <br />that present enrollment of Candlelight Elementary School, abutting the petitioned prop- <br />erty on one side, was now 292, total capacity 300. Councilman Murray said he would <br />presume the Council's stand with regard to mobile hom park development would be that <br />of the Commission unless otherwise stated. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was <br />read the second time by council bill number only. <br /> <br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final <br />passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed <br />and numbered 16979. <br /> <br />--.. <br />."- <br /> <br />41 <br /> <br />2/11/74 - 2' <br />