Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 10-12-92 <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: C - t <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda Section: <br /> <br /> <br />~&- <br /> <br />Hearings <br /> <br />Amendments to the City's sign ordinance. <br /> <br />Backaround: <br /> <br />1. The Planning Commission has completed a comprehensive review <br />of the City's sign ordinance. <br /> <br />2. In August, the Planning commission and City Council had a <br />joint work session to discuss the progress of the ordinance. <br />The Council directed the Planning Commission to finalize <br />provisions dealing with wall and free standing signs and <br />other non-controversial items and bring those forward for <br />Council action. It was also agreed that provisions dealing <br />with church and other signs would be studied further. <br /> <br />3. The Planning Commission, on a 4-1 vote, recommended Council <br />approval of the attached ordinance amendments. <br /> <br />4. On September 28, 1992, the City Council directed the City <br />Attorney to put the proposed amendments into proper ordinance <br />form. New provisions relating to political signs and <br />electronic message signs have been removed and will be <br />discussed further along with auto dealer signs at the October <br />19, 1992 Work Session. <br /> <br />citv Attornev Comments: <br /> <br />1. By reading Chapter 14 with these amendments, apparently real <br />estate signs and political signs are only allowed in R-1 and <br />R-2 districts. <br /> <br />2. Nonconforming uses are controlle~ Chapter 11. Section <br />14.180 has not been amended and that refers to Chapter 11. <br />So everyone understands, we enclose a copy of Chapter 11 to <br />be read in conjunction with these amendments. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Approve the ordinance amendments as recommended by the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />2. Deny the ordinance amendments. <br />