Laserfiche WebLink
_ ~_ <br />~,~~~~ <br />~uncil Proceeds r.^., <br />:ity of Ne~ca Brig"raon <br />June 22, 1976 <br />Councilman Senden stated that he felt there were real <br />traffic problems in the area but trot an administrative report <br />had also noted problems that would be created by closing <br />Palmer Drive. He stated that he felt the Council did not <br />want to close Palmer Drive but that other suggestions in the <br />administrative report had not been completely researched. <br />He further stated he felt the Council should dispose of the <br />~iaestion of road closing and direct further study of other <br />H h also felt a public hearing <br />5 <br />alternatives. e stated that e Adm. to <br />was needed in-order to get citizen input. Prepare <br />Motion by Hardt, seconded by Fisher to, direct <br />ement adm~_nistration <br />77-3 based .Resolution <br />to prepare a resolution rnztiating Improv <br />on the Planner's alternates 3 and 6. <br />Motion by Werdouschegg, seconded by Senden to not <br />limit the contents of the: resolution to alternates <br />3 and 6 <br />Moti-on withdrawn. <br />Votc on main yotion l ~ e~ ~ _.carried <br />na es (~~lerdou..chear, ~;~nc.en) <br />3 ayes. - ~ <br />Pt_b_1-ic Hearincts <br />'Attorney stated hearing remained properly called <br />i VN-157 <br />gillman <br />ve <br />Motion by t~~erdouschegg, seconded by Senden to rece <br />letter from Rodney..Billman d~.ted June 16, 1976.. <br />9:45 to <br />5 ayes - 0 Hayes - carried- 9,47 <br />Tvo oi'le spoke regarding the application <br /> <br />er to continue <br />i <br />l <br />Continue <br />s <br />? <br />Motion by ~~Jerdouschegg, seconded by F July l3- <br />heariric~ to .8:01, July 13, 1976 ~3.O1 <br />° <br />5 ayes- 0 Hayes -.carried <br />Attorney stated hearing was properly .called. <br />d <br />The City Planner .reviewed the planning report an UN-156 <br />the Planning Commission recommendations. E-Z Mini <br />I~ir, Charles Nolan, representing F-Z rriini Storage, Stora e <br />g <br />provided a past history of development and signing on <br />h <br />er <br />the property. He stated he had no interest in furt <br />d 948 to <br />signing or advertising, per se, but felt that safety an <br />tated the private 10:36 <br />convenier_ce had to be accommodated. He s <br />ossible to distinguish <br />t im <br />b <br />d <br />p <br />ou <br />a <br />drive was 1,000 feet long an <br />le believed that the private <br />eo <br />d that <br />p <br />p <br />from 3rd Avenue Nr,O an <br />a continuation of 3rd Avenue. He further stated <br />a <br />s <br />_drive~~?ay w <br />ern with any changes to the freeway sign in terms of <br />conc <br />the effect it might.. have on his business. <br />Councilman fiardt asked if it were true that only the <br />.?lower panel on the freeway sign was nonconforming. <br />Mr. Nolan .responded. that was correct. <br />