03-13-2007 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Masterson stated that his concern is visibility, due to the way the building is situated on the lot. He stated that the wall signage and monument sign would not be visible from Highway 10. Mr. Masterson stated he felt that, considering the site plan was already approved, the request should not be subject to the moratorium. Ms. Cartney stated that an actual sign permit was not received prior to the approval of the moratorium. Discussion followed regarding the location of the sign. Commissioner Anderson stated that the Commission must look at the PUD standards, even though the signage would not be an issue if the site were zoned C3. Also, the Commission must consider the moratorium. He stated he supported staff's recommendation for denial, based on the findings that the request is not consistent with the PUD standards and the moratorium placed by the Council. Commissioner Stevens stated he concurred with Commissioner Anderson. He agreed that the Commission should support what was approved in the PUD agreement, and he did not see a reason to change it at this time. Commissioner Scott stated that it appears the applicant is trying to be a good neighbor. He did not understand what the rush was, and why the decision for the sign needs to be made now. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER STEVENS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST BY MISSISSIPPI RIDGE, LLC TO AMEND THE PUD SIGN REQUIREMENTS, CASE NO.OA 07-03, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 2. IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS SIGN UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAVE COMPLETED THEIR WORK RELATIVE TO THE SIGN MORATORIUM. Chair Lemke stated that he was in favor of the signage request, but that he also had concerns with the sign moratorium. Mr. Rohlf stated he disagreed with Commissioner Anderson regarding not allowing a deviation from the approved PUD standards, since PUD's are chosen because of their flexibility. He stated that the request would not be injurious to anyone, and that it was not unreasonable. He felt the Planning Commission could act on the request and that if they do not, they were getting way too hung up on the moratorium. He disagreed with staff's finding that the sign request was not submitted prior to the moratorium. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6.1. Update on Febniary 20, 2007 City Council Meeting Commissioner Stevens provided an update on the February 20, 2007 City Council meeting.