01/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

noted recent Council action changing sign district to Industrial (Scarlett) on property adjacent to those covered by this recommendation. No ex parte contacts or other reasons for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Councilman Williams stating his intent to'abstain from discussion or voting on the issue. Staff notes and planning commission minutes of December 3, 1974 were noted and made a part of the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. C.B.720 - Changing Sign District to Industrial on property in the 400 and 500 blocks between Washington Street and Lawrence Street was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that findings supporting the sign dis- trict change as set out in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 3, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto; that the council bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Lacking unanimous consent - Council members Murray, Keller, Beal, Hamel, Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Councilman Bradley voting no; Councilman Williams abstaining - the bill was held over for second reading. Councilman Haws wondered whether the Planning Commission had before it at time of making the recommendation for change to Industrial a letter from the State Highway Department opposing the sign district change. He asked too whether the city had an established policy with regard to placing signs on or near its parks. Manager wasn't familiar with the letter mentioned and said the question of signs near parks had never been raised before. Mr. Saul said that when this request was before the Planning Commission, the comment was that the range of uses allowed under M-2 zoning would have an impact on adjacent park uses far more serious than could be effected by an industrial sign district. (Note: The letter mentioned from the State Highway Department opposed the industrial sign district on the basis that it would have an adverse effect upon the Washington/ Jefferson park.) C. Code Amendments 1. Parking Requirements for Quad and Quint Developments Parking Requirements, Quad and Quint Developments - Recommended by the Planning Commission on December 3, 1974 'which would require two and 'a half parking spaces per quad living unit and three parking spaces per quint living unit. Hr., Murray moved seconded by Hr. Keller to set public hearing on the amendment for Januar!! 27, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimousl!!. Parking provisions proposed for quad and quint developments were reviewed (see committee minutes above). Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 721 - Amending Sections 9.254 and 9.586 of City Code and adding Section 9.587 re: Parking requirements for quad and quint .developments was read by council bill number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that it be read in full. 1/27/75 - 8 2-1" . (1112) e (1148) Comm 1/15/75 Pub Hrng .