08/10/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.. Z l I 7 7 e 8/10/70 -. . r - . I automobiles or whether people would be walking, into consideration. This wording was the clear intent of the Planning Commission, as it related to billboards. . City Manager explained that, at the time of discussion of Highway Oriented District, 15' was considered to be the minimum necessary to prevent blanketing. Mr. Teague suggested that the Council refer this question to the PlanniDg Commission I for review. Dr. Purdy did not believe the original intent of the ordinance was to II restrict billboards to 15' setback. I Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to table discussion on amendment of the sign code. Messrs. Mohr, Teague, Purdy and Gribskov were in favor. Mrs. Hayward, Messrs. Williams, McDonald and Beal and Mayor Anderson voted no. The Motion failed. I I Mayor Anderson suggested the public hearing be closed and further information could II be presented when the ordinance was given a second reading. d e I I Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward that the public hearing be closed. Motion I carried. City Manager pointed out that the ordinance in question had several other amendments to the sign code which have not ben controversial; A short break was taken. I 11 Mayor Anderson suggested in view of the fact there is some quest~on of intent when II the original ordinance was prepared, that the Council adopt those amendments which are 11 not controversial, omitting the section dealing with b~llboards for further consider- ation. I Mr~ McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague ,that Council Bill No. 9199 be read the second time, with unanimous consent of the Council, except Section 7, which would be referr~d to the Planning Commission for discussion at a joint City Council-Planning Commission meeting. I Mr. Mohr suggested that the motion not include reference to a joint meeting, but I delete Section 7. Mr. McDonald and Mr. Teague were agreeable to that proposal and II a vote was taken on the motion as amended. Motion carried. I In answer to Mr. Mohr, City Mangger said joint meetings of Council and Planning Commission are not public hearings, but they are open meetings. I I I Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague to authorize the City Manager to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss amendment of the sign code, with reference to billboard setback. Motion carried. I C. Appeal from Condi tionalUse Condition (Snellstrom) ... I I Mrs. Sylvia Snellstrom was granted a conditional use permit for operation of a day care center at the corner of 23rd Avenue and University Street. She has appealed a I condition imposed by the Planning Commission for ten children in the center in any j one day, and has suggested that this limitation be changed to sixty children in any given six day period. Mr. Morven Thomas said the Planning Commission had. discussed this matter at its noon I meeting and voted unanimously to P?ss a motion to allow the nursery to have twenty I children in one day, in compliance with county and state requirements. They were - only concerned wi ththe i!Ilpact of traffic on the neighborhood, and any problems can I be corrected by using the complaint procedure set forth in Section 17.04 of the zoning ordinance. I Mr. Wayne Helliksen, representing Mrs. Snellstrom, said they would accept this ruling II of the Planning Commission. They felt this would be easier to police than their ori- I ginal suggestion of sixty children per2six day period. I Mr. Leo Stauffer, 2263 University Street, objected to this ruling and asked if this I was a hearing on the question of granting the coriditional use, or merely the matter I of number of children in attendance. City Attorney ruled that the latter was the case. He assured Mr. Stauffer that neighbors would have the opportunity to register I complaints if operation of the center caused problems in the ne~ghborhood. There was discussion about procedure for complaints for conditional uses, and why I I certain conditions were imposed. I I Mrs. Walter Moberly, 2260 University, objected to expansion of this use, and felt~it I I would increase noise and cause traffic problems. Mrs. Hayward pointed out that there is a park and school yard in the neighborhood now, which generate noise of children. Mr. Thomas explained that neighbors at the public hearing had stated that the e existing operation was unoffensive and that no problems had been created. I \ ;1 8/10/70 - 3 II Ii ~ >;