Agenda - Council - 11/07/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Musgrove asked if the property owner believes that this location would be better for his potential business development. Planning Manager Larson replied that Mr. Kuker was concerned that a sign would block visibility to his development site. He stated that Mr. Kuker still was not happy with this location but believed it to be better than the alternative site. Councilmember Musgrove referenced the distance between signs of two miles. She asked if a variance could be allowed to permit another sign to the east, even if that two-mile distance is not met. Planning Manager Larson confirmed that someone could request a variance, but a hardship would need to be proven. Chairperson Bauer noted that one of the variance criteria is that the problem is not created by the landowner and in this instance, it would be the distance of 200 feet and placement of the City sign, therefore it would seem to be permissible. He recognized that the full Planning Commission did not support the ordinance, but it was passed by the City Council and therefore the decision should be based upon whether this request meets the criteria and not based on whether a member likes the concept of a billboard. Commissioner VanScoy stated that he finds that the City finding a small sliver of land to place a sign in front of another property owner to be inappropriate. He stated that the City would be impacting a landowner and their potential use. Commissioner Gengler stated that whether the Commission is in agreement with the concept of a sign or not, it does meet the criteria of the ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Gengler, seconded by Commissioner Hunt, to recommend that City Council adopt Resolution #22-193 Approving a Conditional Use Permit for a Digital Billboard at 7559 Riverdale Drive NW with the tan and red stone. Further discussion Commissioner Walker stated that he has been opposed to this concept since it began. He noted that the City has changed the rules to allow the placement of a sign. He stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion based on the arbitrary distance of two miles between signs. He agreed that placing this sign in front of a property where the owner has been in discussion with a major retailer is a mistake and therefore, he will continue not to support this. Motion Failed. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bauer, Commissioners Gengler, and Hunt. Voting No: Commissioners Anderson, VanScoy, and Walker. Absent: Commissioner Peters. 7.02: Discuss Eliminating Zoning Permits Presentation Planning Commission/ September 29, 2022 Page 5 of 14