PL MINUTES 08201985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r _ > -4- • 1 2. No one appeared at either hearing .to object to the planning. 2 3 3. The subject plat generally conforms to municipal standards and where lots are 4 smaller than required, many. simil.ar lots.with small frontages, depths, and 5 land area, have been platted and developed in the adjacent locality; 6 7 4. The final platting speci.fically' identifies the utility and drainage easements 8 to which the City would. have access, which. .had been. a concern of the Planning 9 Commission; and 10 11 5. The platting requires placement of. al-1 utilities underground as recommended by 12 the City's Comprehensive Plan, 13 14 Motion carried unanimously. 15 16 Copies of the Proposed Assessment Policy for the City had- been provided each 17 Commissioner at the request of. .the Council , Mr. Childs said, and he told them any 18 suggestions they might have related to. the policy should be submitted in written 19 form to him in time for the Council to take into consideration before they approve 20 the final document probably late i'n September. SeveraY preliminary comments and 21 suggestions for-changes in wording were made that evening, which the Commissioners 22 were requested to put in writing., for presentation to the Council . 23 24 Commissioner Hansen indicated h`is- concern with how two different Commission matters 25 had been- handled in -the past two' or three,.months . He said it had been three 26 months since. the Curtis Mathes signage had been .appr.oved, by the Council (even • 27 though. there had, been 'an even split of.the Commissionvote on the recommendations 28 to the: Council because of reservations some Commissioners had about the 29- proposall and since that time, not only had the non-conforming 990 Video sign 30 which :the- store owners had -promised both the Commission and Council would be 3L taken down; remained on the .front of the store, but -a Targe promotional banner 32 had- been --hung there as well., The Commissionerindicated he had talked to Mr. 33 Childs about these violations of -the -Sign Ordinance and had been told the owners 34 would be cited immediately, which .he surmised had evidently not happened. 35 36 Commissioner -Hansen drew. a parallel: with this problem and what he perceived had 37 happened in, relation to the Karate studio, saying he was basing his conclusions 38 on what he had read in the Commission and Council minutes for June and July, 39 because he had missed both months ' Commission meetings. 40 -41 From those minutes,. the Commissi_oner. sa:id, his understanding- had been that the 42 'Council had granted .a conditional-..use permit for the studio in .spite of the non- 43 approval of the Commission, which.- he noted, -had even caused Councilmember Ranallo 44 to question "Why do we even have a .P-lanning Commission? Because of his per- 45 ception of what. had happened in both-these cases, Commissioner Hansen said he had 46 questioned whether "the real feelings of'. the Commission were being accurately - 4 7 conveyed to the Council " because the impression he had gotten had. been that both . 48 issues- had .'just sort of.. slid through' the Council '!. 49 50 The Commissioner then reminded the .other. Commissioners of hiw own "bad feelings" 51 about the sign request because he had percei-ved there was "someth.ing fishy about - 52 : the whole request from the start, when the- applicant -had lied about several 53 matters, .including- his conversation with the City Manager", and he added, "in light 54 of what's happening now, I wasn 't so far off". 55