pf_03151 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

7 - ~--_.- , - I " t .UEST FOR COUNCIL_ION MEETING 7 13 81 DATE: - - AGENDA SECTION: Hearings ORIGINATING DEPT,/DIV,: Administration DEPT, HEAD APPROVAL. 13 -oj MGRR~R VIEWED / RECOMMENDS: JA -- I"" - (/ The Council at its June 1, meeting considered 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. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Non-Conforming Signs ITEM NO,: Attached is the original letter from the City Attorney dated May 4, discussing the proposed 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 advertising signs to assure it is clear that signs advertising 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 signs. The attorney feels 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 residential zoned property by June 1, 1984, and from all other zoning classifications by June 1, 1985. Section 14.038 is added as a result of the attorney's review of the new state statute. This section exempts billboards along interstate 35W from the removal requirements. As explained in the attorney's letters, the City would be required to pay IIjust compensationll to the sign company if those signs were required to be removed. He indicates that if the Council chooses to have the billboards along 35W removed, the new statute would provide for the use of condemnation proceedings. Of the 16 billboards located in the City, 4 are located along Interstate 35W and, therefore, would not be removed if the proposed ordinance were adopted. All four signs are located on industrially zoned property. Of the remaining 12 signs, 7 are located on industrial and commercial zoned property and 5 on residential zoned property. Section 14.180 grandfathers all non-conforming signs in place on the effective date of the ordinance, except the billboards discussed above. This would include signs which are non- conforming because of size, setback, painted on building, located on roof, etc. If the Council adopts the ordinance, ~hotos of these non-conforming signSlwill be taken to assure there will be no question in flre future whether a sign is IIgrandfatheredll or whether it is Gonstructed after the adoption of this ordinance. A representative of the Naegle Si~n Company, which owns 13 of the 16 signs and all 4 signs along Interstate 35W, will be present at the meeting. If the Council desires to adopt the ordinance, the following motion is suggested: Motion adopting ordinance regarding non-conforming signs. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * At the July 13th meeting, the hearing was continued to the July 27th meeting, at the request of Naegle Sign Company.