1981_0727_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

00 MEN ..... ..... . . ......... ............... . . ..... ..... ......................... ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ............. 1EETING DATE: .7-13-81 MENNEMEN&W-2 AGENDA SECTION'. ORIGINATING DEPT./DIV.: DEPT. HEAD APPROVAL. I Hearings I Administration - I I ITEM NO.: ITEM DESCRIPTIOW Proposed Ordinance Regarding Non-Conforming MGF?.(9Rt.,VIEWED/ RECOMMENDS Si qns A The Council at its June 1 meeting consicered the proposed ordinance regarding non-conform- ing signs, The hearing was- continued to the July 13, meeting and the City Attorney was instructed to review the recently adopted state statute relating to requiring compensation to sign companies for removing certain advertising signs, .-A 0 Attached is the original letter from the Cit Attorney dated May 4. discussing the proposed Y ordinance and letters from the attorney dated June 25 and July 7, reviewing the impact of the state statute,, Also attached is the proposed ordinance taking into account the pro- visions of the statute, Section 14.020 of the proposed ordinance amends the definition of business and advertisin signs to assure it is clear that sions advertisinq the name of the business or commodity sold, must be located on the business premises, Section 14,035 sets forth a policy on non-conforming advertising siqns. The attorney feelt this will make the Council's rationale for the ordinance clear in 'case it is ever reviewed by a court, Sections 14.036 and 14.037 require the removal of advertising signs (billboards) from vftesidential zoned property by June 1. 1984,, and from all other zoning classifications by ine 1, 19850 Section 14.180 grandfathers all non-conforming signs in place on the effectiVe date of th4 ordinance, except the billboards discussed above. This would include signs which are non- conforming because of size, setback, painted on buildina, located on roof, etc. If the Council adopts the ordinance,- photos of these non-confor"mina signs will be taken to assure there will be no question in the future whether a sign is "o-'randfathered" or whether it is constructed after the adoption of this ordinance, I A representative of the Naegle Sign Company, which owns 13 of the 16 signs and all 4 sian4*4 along Interstate 35W, will be present at the meeting. %W a Ef the Council desires to adopt the ordinance, the following motion is suggested. Motion adopting ordinance regarding non-conforming signs, %.. %.0 At the July 13th meeting, the hearing was continued to the July 27th meeting,, at the request of Naegle Sign Company,