My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-88 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
01-27-88 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:41:03 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:51:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />Jan. 27, 1988 <br />Billboards asked the Council's feelings for• enfor~cing the ordinance at this time. <br />(Cont.) <br />The Ci ty Pl anner~ agr~eed that the or~di nance defi ned bi 11 boar~d as a <br />pr•ohibited sign and included a sunset clause of 5 year•s fr•om the <br />enactment of the or•dinance stating that after~ that time the billboar•d <br />had to be either~ r•emoved or~ br~ought into confor~mity ~aith the or~dinance. <br />Fahey felt that the sign owner•s would ar•gue that they had not had <br />sufficient time to r~ealize a r•etur•n on their~ investment. Fahe,y asked <br />the City Attorney whether or not the ordinance was enforceable on this <br />matter•. <br />The Planner~ noted that other• communities have or•dinances which include <br />sunset clauses. <br />The City Attor•ney r•epor~ted that the Minnesota Supr~eme Cour~t has not <br />deter•mined a r•easonable time to enfor~ce something out of existence <br />without having to pay for~ it. The Attor•ney did not know if this <br />pr•ovision was enfor•ceable, and it was his exper~ience that a city can <br />wor•k something out with an owner to take down a sign r~ather~ than doing <br />i t thr•ough cour~t acti on. <br />The Attor•ney stated that the P1i nnesota Supr~eme Cour~t i s goi ng i n favor• <br />of pr•oper~ty owner~s, and the City may have to pay for~ whatever• usable <br />life is left in the billboar•d. <br />Council discussed the matter and felt that the City Clerkshould write a <br />letter• to the billboar~d owner• r~eminding him of the pr•ovisions of the <br />or~dinance, and asking plans for• br•inging the billboar•ds into confor•mance <br />with the or•dinance. Council felt a solution might be able to be wor~ked <br />out with the sign owner. <br />Mr•s. Scalze intr•oduced the following r•esolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTIO~! N0. 88-1-2$-INSTFiUCTING THE <br />CITY CLERK TO 41RITE A LETTER TO NAEGELE <br />SIGPI COMPAMY ASKING THEIR INTENTIO~IS FOR <br />BRIMGING THEIR RILLBOARDS W.ITIiIN TFIE CITY <br />INTO CONFORMAF!CE WITH THE CITY'S SIGN <br />ORDINANCE <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, Blesener, Collova, Fahey, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declar•ed adopted. <br />This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book ~lo. 19, Page 30. <br />Bank Shot Fahey updated Ar•t Her~kenhoff, Planning Commission member•, on the <br />Billiar~ds action the Council just took with r~egar•d to the conditional use per~mit <br />(Cont.) for~ Bank Shot Billiar~ds. <br />Pa~e -14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.