CC_Minutes_2008_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 28, 2008 Page 9 Councilmember Willmus opined that ten square feet was a very small space to provide language indicating "For Sale/Lease" and a legible phone number. Councilmember Thlan opined that on business or commercial space, people usu- ally worked through a leasing agency, and were not driving around looking for space; and that this provision would allow a prominent sign on a permanent basis. Councilmember Ihlan opined that either a maximum ten square foot allowance, or a time limit be incorporated in the language. Councilmember Pust questioned why the appeal process was to the City Council, rather than the Variance Board. City Planner Paschke advised that, in being appealed to the Variance Board, they would need to base their findings on a hardship, similar to the variance and/or setback proposal, while staff wasn't basing their judgments on hardships. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that, in staff's role as zoning administrators when making decisions administratively, they always had accountability to elected officials, and applicants retained the right to be heard at the City Council level. Further discussion included striking language indicating banners as temporary signs; prohibitions and offenses for boulevard signs (i.e., sandwich boards used for advertising); whether another enforcement tool such as a fine was indicated; and whether existing staff could handle pro-active enforcement effectively. Councilmember Roe recognized that sign enforcement was time-consuming, and noted the concerns of neighbors to those businesses habitually abusing regula- tions, and the emotions involved. Ihlan moved amendment to proposed language of the staff report (page 5, line 191, Section 5.3.a.1) that the reference to 32 square foot be removed, and the 10 square foot be reinstated. Mayor Klausing declared the motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, without the motion being broken into sections, she would be voting against the proposed ordinance in its entirety due to her con- cerns with Section 5.3 as referenced above. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns in increasing the size of permanent real estate signs; and opined that it was not in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. Pust moved, Ihlan seconded, to exclude references in Section 5.3 of the staff re- port dated July 28, 2008 (page 5, lines 185 - 200); and subsequent notations in the draft ordinance language (Chapter 1010.03, Section 2.11.b (real estate signs...),