03-22-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Should the variance request be denied and subsequently appealed, the Zoning Administrator shall instruct the appropriate staff persons to prepare technical reports where appropriate and provide general assistance in preparing a recommendation on the action to the City Council. The applicant or a representative shall appear before the Planning Commission in order to answer questions concerning the appeal. Again, the Planning Commission shall have the power to make a recommendation to the City Council. As the governing body, the City Council then makes the decision to approve or deny the appeal. The City Council must base its decision on the compliance of the request in regard to established conditions governing consideration of variance requests which will be addressed in this report. Previous Application: Combined with the applicant's reconstruction plans of the principal structure at this site, the applicant intended to remove the entire existing non - conforming sign and replace it with a completely new sign that equaled the non - conforming height of thirty (30) feet. Allowed sign height is calculated based on the size of the principal structure which, in this case, allowed the applicant a height of sixteen (16) feet. The following actions took place on the Fina sign request: 8/11/88 - The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Fina Serve variance request to replace their existing 30 foot high sign with a new 30 foot high sign based on past precedent set in the Unocal request and the fact that the Fina Serve property has exposure to Highway 36. 8/24/88 - Resolution No. 88 -8 -349: The City Council denied the Fina variance request. Discussion surrounding this issue regarding possible past precedent established in the Unocal case was divided. Secondly, some Council members felt it was unreasonable to require a conforming sign just because the property owner was improving the site while others felt it was the Council's obligation to enforce the City's Sign Ordinance, otherwise the Ordinance should be changed. It was also pointed out that the Council previously reviewed the Ordinance and found it to be fairly liberal compared to Ordinances found in other Cities. Resolution No. 88 -8 -350: Instructed City Planner and Clerk to research how other Cities handle similar situations. Page 35