CC PACKET 03081988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 4 . Neighbors have every reason to expect the zoning in their neigh- • 2 borhood would remain R-1 and several of these were present at the 3 February 16 , 1988 Commission hearing to express opposition to the 4 proposed rezoning. 5 5. R-2 zoning would be likely to increase traffic and congestion in 6 an area where there are already traffic concerns. 7 Motion carried unanimously. 8 Discussion About Difference in Recommendations Related to Mickey D' s 9 Signage 10 Commissioner werenicz explained some of the Commission concerns 11 reported in the minutes by saying there was a perception on the 12 Commission that they might be getting "mixed signals" from the Council 13 related to planning issues. He said this uncertainty as well as the 14 realization that the Planning Commission is only an advisory board had 15 played a big part in the Commission' s reluctance to suggest a harder 16 stance related to the excessive signage on the Dairy Queen after what 17 had happened to their recommendations related to Mickey D' s Signage 18 where the Commissioners were convinced the City "had really been 19 snowed. " 20 Ranallo assured the Commissioner that the Council thought they were 21 doing a fine job and benefited from their input. He reminded him 22 that the Council has legal guidance the Commission doesn' t have and • 23 often in cases like the Mickey D' s signage the Council may have 24 predicated its decision on the legal ramifications of that issue. 25 Marks told the Commission representative the Council relies on the 26 Commission' s best possible interpretations and findings on issues even 27 if they get overturned. He said the Council doesn' t want the 28 Commission to be driven by what they think the Council wants to hear 29 but rather wants their best independent thinking on every matter 30 which comes up for their recommendations. He said he continued to 31 believe that in both the Dairy Queen and Mickey D' s matters , the 32 Council had tried to get past the differences and to grant signage 33 based on what signage was really needed for those two different 34 locations. He said in the case of Mickey D' s signage, a photo of how 35 the restaurant looked as you approached it from the east had 36 convinced at least some of the Councilmembers that the businesses 37 needed signage on that side. He insisted the fact that the applicant 38 had already bought the sign had really not been a factor in that 39 decision. 40 Sundland indicated the Council' s minutes accurately reflected the 41 Council' s skepticism about the sign company' s sign measurements but 42 at the same time recognized the restaurant needed better 43 identification. 10