Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Cleveland felt Council's main concern was whether the applicant might come <br /> back at a later time to request the remaining 90 units. He indicated applicant was <br /> willing to sign a contractual agreement to limit development to 145 units, if <br /> Council so desired. He mentioned their plans for a home for the aged had been <br /> -- dropped primarily because' of highway noise. The question now, as he sees it, is <br /> what is the most compatible with the future. This proposed development would <br /> appeal to young, mobile people whose needs are not sufficiently met in the City. <br /> Mr. Korth advised the City could accept an offer to limit development to 145 units <br /> but that they could not impose such a restriction. Mrs. Beal thought that, since <br /> " 145 units was predicated only on the sewer, as soon as the sewer capacity was <br /> increased, the l4S-unit limitation would no longer be a concern. <br /> Mr. Keller said he didn't understand why limiting the ultimate number of units to <br /> less than 235 would be favored. <br /> Mr. Wood said that, if a limitation is placed, it could later be removed by Council <br /> if it were reasonable to do so. Mr. Saul said that, in addition to the sewer <br /> aspect, other problems mentioned were school facilities, since excluding <br /> school-aged children could not be a permanent restriction on development. <br /> Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Council approve the zone change <br /> with the stipulation that a contract between the applicant and the City be drawn <br /> limiting the development to 14S'units. <br /> . Mayor Anderson pointed out the matter would automatically go' back for a joint <br /> hearing. <br /> ..,' <br /> Mr. Williams said he arrived at only a $6.00 difference in cost' of living between <br /> allowing 145 units under R2PD and 104 units under RA. He said, "We are looking <br /> at massive traffic jams now". <br /> Mr. Murray said the difference between 104 and 145 units is not substantial and <br /> that passing on the'motion would seem justified. <br /> Vote was taken on the motion, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Williams <br /> and Mrs. Campbell voting no and Mr. Hershner absta'ining. <br /> Before commencing the sign code issues, Mr. Williams made a statement to the effect <br /> that he would not vote on any other sign issues. He stated he did not have any <br /> connection with the applicants nor any conflict he was aware of regarding previous <br /> sign discussions. However, some husinessmen, he added, believe the proper approach <br /> is economic punishment of councilmen as a result of their vote on certain sign issues. <br /> He therefore wished to decline to vote on/any future sign questions. <br /> Mr. McDonald expressed surprise and said he would also have to take the same position <br /> '. "as regards tonight's matters". <br /> ""' <br /> B. Staff Appeal of Sign Code Board of Appeals Decisions - September 17, 1973 <br /> City Manager expressed staff's' appreciation of assistance received from the Sign <br /> Code Board of Appeals and hoped' that the appeals by staff are not interpreted <br /> as being lack of appreciation or the launching of new policies. In these particular <br /> instances, it seemed that the granting of variances would have the potential for <br /> setting a precedent that could. result in amending the intent of the sign code' <br /> itself; and staff thought it appropriate that Council have the opportunity to do that <br /> directly if desired rather than through the use of the variance procedure. <br /> l. Boon's Red Carpet Motel <br /> The motel is located several blocks west of Jefferson, with an off-premise <br /> directional sign in the 300 block of Jefferson Street, just south of the <br /> railroad tracks, directing people coming across the bridge. The owner is <br /> in the process of providing a sign which would conform to the size requirements <br /> of the code. The sign is located in an industrial sign district and, according <br /> to the code, off premise directional signs shall be located in a highway <br /> oriented district. On September 17, the Sign Code Board of Appeals granted a <br /> variance. The question-raised was whether to allow the sign to remain in an <br /> . industrial sign district, the argument being that it is similar to many signs <br /> in a highway-oriented district. During the tour of the area, the question <br /> was raised whether it would be more appropriate to consider changing the zone <br /> from industrial to highway-oriented. Staff has indicated the belief ~t would <br /> be inappropriate for a highway-oriented' district to be extended along Jefferson <br /> and Washington in order to permit signs along the overpass. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> 11/5/73 - 3 <br /> 3~O <br />