PL PACKET 02211989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ma I 4ayor sundland commented that he perceived the sign might increase '102 business for Apache and he thought the residents of the townhomes might 3 consider a small monument sign a good tradeoff for having a restaurant 4 built 450 feet away from the roadway instead of right across from 5 their homes. 6 Gladys Johnson, a townhome resident, told him the residents in her area 7 "couldn't see any need for a Burger King at Apache in the first place 8 and continued to believe the proposed sign would be 'very unsightly' 9 right across from their homes. " 10 Councilmember Ranallo recalled that he had voted twice against allowing 11 TCF the type of signage it now has but pointed out to Mrs. Johnson 12 that he perceived it would be very likely that if the City denied the 13 smaller 6 X 6 sign, Apache might decide instead to construct the 14 restaurant "right across from you" . 15 Commissioner Hansen interjected that he didn't think the townhome 16 residents should be "mislead to think they had no choice in the matter, 17 since there was no assurance the Commissioners would go along with a IS Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant 200 feet from Midwest Federal.11 19 He said no such option had been offered during the Commission hearing. 20 Mr. Sikora 'responded thatApache was not seeking a permit for:-any other 21 site than the one identified in their proposal. He also told the 22 Council that it had been only one Commissioner who had been strongly 23 opposed to the signage request and "he clearly influenced the other two 24 to vote against the final motion. " 25 Councilmember Ranallo questioned the City Attorney about what he thought 26 Apache's reaction would be about being denied a monument sign in an area 27 where many precedents for that type of signage had already been 28 established. Mr. Soth indicated he was certain the shopping center 29 owners would argue that point. 30 Councilmember Marks indicated he could certainly see the need for 31 better identification of a building so far from the road and wanted to 32 be convinced that a variance should be granted for a monument sign. 33 However, although he could see where from a business standpoint, the 34 request might be considered "unique" , from the standpoint of land use 35 ' and the City's ordinance, he hadn't been completely convinced that it 36 would be a real hardship for the owner if he were not allowed to put up 37 the sign because he perceived no unusual topography for the parcel 38 which would prevent "a reasonable use of the land" if the restaurant 39 wasn't allowed. He said he had difficulty seeing where the three 40 conditions required to be satisfied before a variance could be granted 41 could be answered affirmatively with this proposal. The commissioner 42 also told the applicants the policy about not allowing fr,ee standing 43 signage for any Apache businesses except those in detached buildings was 44 strictly Apache's. 8