01-27-1988 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission Jan. 14, 1988 Gardner Bros. its sign ordinance. Davison stated that he was not in favor of granting (Cont.) a variance to the ordinance. However, if there is a problem with the ordinance, then Davison suggested that the ordinance should be reviewed. Davison stated that the Planner would have to convince the City that the ordinance is not in line with what other cities are doing in order for an ordinance amendment to be considered. Davison stated that he was not in favor of the variance as there was no hardship present. However, Davison stated that he did not want to discourage the development of the Gardner Bros. site. The City Planner pointed out that the sign ordinance was drafted after consultation with the various businesses in the City, who felt the 200 square feet was adequate at that time. Felix felt that the site can accommodate a larger sign. Gardner Bros. pointed out that the hardship is the power lines and the fact that the power lines detract from the sign and will dwarf the sign. Timmons pointed out that the power line were in existence before Gardner Bros. purchased the property. The Commission again pointed out the variance that was denied Slumberland as well as other businesses in the City. Felix stated that the sign planned by Gardner Bros. would not be intrusive. Timmons pointed out that Gardner Bros. could move their sign to the other end of their property which is higher and would be more visible. Felix felt that the sign variance was in order given the size of the property. Felix also indicated that Gardner Bros. did not want to move the location of the sign. DeLonais pointed out that if the City approves the Gardner Bros. sign variance, any future developments to the south will be in requesting sign variances. Secondly, DeLonais pointed out that the driving conditions are hazardous in this area with the intersecting of freeways and felt that large signs might add to the problem. Davison stated that if the Council feels the ordinance needs to be reviewed in light of the variance requests the City is receiving, then this should be done rather than granting variances. Davison pointed out the input the City has received into the sign ordinance from the business community. Timmons stated that she did not want to give the message that the Planning Commission feels the sign ordinance should be reviewed. Timmons did not feel that more time and money should be spent in reviewing this ordinance pointing out the thorough review the ordinance received when it was adopted. Costa agreed. Page 6