Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br />COUNCIL MEETING MAY 11, 1992 <br />a double row of evergreens, 10' apart, balled and burlapped. <br />5. The car wash shall not be constructed until such time as <br />sewer and water is available, or an acceptable recycle <br />system is devised to accommodate 100% of the water from the <br />car wash. <br />6. Drainage and Utility plans are subject to approval by the <br />RCWD. <br />7. Dispensing devices are in clear view of attendant at all <br />times per section 79.903 of the State Fire Code. <br />8. City Council review and approve signage proposal. Staff <br />would recommend as follows: <br />a. Pylon - Existing pylon sign be raised to 65 feet as <br />allowed by Ordinance. <br />b. Ground Sign - Would be processed for a variance for the <br />new downsized sign if determined to be necessary by the <br />City Attorney. <br />c. Wall Signage - Lighted portion of sign be allowed as <br />proposed with elimination of lighting of the building <br />and diesel canopy to the south. <br />d. No additional wall signage allowed on site without an <br />amended conditional use permit. <br />Mr. Hawkins was asked how best to move forward with this <br />situation. Mr. Hawkins suggested that the City Council approve <br />the Conditional Use Permit subject to his review of the necessity <br />for a variance for the ground sign and if a variance is required <br />and if FinaMart does not want to apply for the variance, the <br />present sign can remain. There appears to be no opposition to <br />downsizing the sign, the legal question of whether or not a <br />variance is required must be resolved. <br />Council Member Bergeson moved to approve the Conditional Use <br />Permit for FinaMart with the conditions outlined by the City <br />Engineer and subject to the review by the City Attorney of the <br />ground sign need for a variance. Council Member Neal seconded <br />the motion. Motion carried unanimously. <br />ATTORNEY'S REPORT <br />FIRST READING, Ordinance No. 09 - 92, Moratorium Ordinance <br />Regulating Pornographic Materials - Mr. Hawkins explained that <br />this matter was discussed at the April 27, 1992 regular Council <br />meeting and again at the May 6, 1992 Council Work Session. The <br />City Council had directed him to draft a moratorium ordinance <br />allowing time for the City to put in place a comprehensive <br />ordinance regulating pornographic materials. Council Member <br />Bergeson said he felt that a 180 day moratorium would not be <br />adequate and suggested that it be a 365 day moratorium. Mr. <br />Hawkins suggested that the Council enact a 180 day moratorium <br />PAGE 9 <br />