02-22-89 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P4ID7UTES City Council ~'ebruary 22, 19F;~ Section 5 P1r. T3lesener introduced the followiny resolution and moved PUTJ ~rea its adoptions P,ezoning (cont.) "p~Si~N~~ RFSOI,tJTION NOL II9-2-70 - ~en~;z,r.Ne TII~ -(;fA`~C1~WK~-T-T12PT-- _6F=~'8E-3?F78~~6-t3EA&t~~TF, ON TIIE SFCTION E PUD ~RSA , RE7,ONING PI20POSAI~ UNTSL TfI~ SFCON~ P•1FETIPIC:; IV Correction r~ARCfI res.89-3-94 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by t7r, Collova, Ayes (3) Scalze, I3lesener, Collova, Nays (0>. Resoluti.on declared adop~ced, This resolution appears in Resolution 13ook No. 21, Page 77.. Text 1~mend- P~rs, Scalze indicated that the ~urpose of the pro~~osed Text ment Amenclment is to elirninate a~or~ion of the Sign Ordinance Ord. 311 pertaining to enforcement of non-conformin9 signs. Mrs, Sca]ze stated that this item also requires at least four ~genc~a votes and therefore must also be reschedulecl for Ttem No. ~i the second meetin<~ in C9arcka. Mr. Blesener asked if the Text Amendmen~ would delete the portion oi the Sign Ordinance wl~icka forces owners to tal<e their non-conforming signs ciown within five years. P9r. Grittman indica'ted that i'c does. D9r. Grittman also indicated that the City may kaave to compensate the ownerse Cirs. Scalze stated that sometimes the State pays for rernoval of non-conforming siyns if money is available; however, sornetirnes it takes a few years for money to become available, P1r, Chlebeck stated that the Hic~h~~~ay Departrnent indicated that a non-conrorming si.gn may be rernoved through the process of eminent domain. t~7r. filesenEr stated that s~~hen the signs ~aere built, arounci 197i3-1979, they urere conforming at that time> I4rs, Scalze indicated that she ~aould pre~er to leave Section 903.110.D>3 in the Sign Orciinance. Page 3