Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />December 27, 1989 <br />Scalze pointed out that the billboard on the <br />mini-storage site is a non-conforming use. 5calze felt <br />that the time to address such non-conforming uses is <br />when another request is presented on a property. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City has a sunset clause for <br />billboards. <br />Jones reported that there is a long-term lease for the <br />billboard of more than 20 years that runs with the <br />property. Jones stated that he believes that Naegele <br />initially owned the property and when it was sold <br />retained an easement for the billboard. <br />Fahey asked if the City has the legal ability to <br />require the billboard to come down, and asked if the <br />City would have to pay compensation to Naegele for <br />requiring the billboard to be removed. <br />The City Attorney replied that the Courts have said <br />that the useful life of a structure such as a sign can <br />be amoritized. <br />Scalze felt the issue should be addressed as part of <br />the PUD amendment request, pointing out that the City <br />will lose the opportunity otherwise. <br />Blesener did not believe that the City should penalize <br />the landowner for an easement he had nothing to do <br />with. Fahey and LaValle agreed. <br />The City Attorney suggested that a Code provision would <br />be needed to accomplish what Scalze had suggested. <br />However, the City would still be faced with the problem <br />of compensation. <br />Fahey felt the issue of the billboard should be <br />addressed separately, and that the City Attorney should <br />look into it. <br />Blesener and LaValle agreed that the issues were <br />separate ones. <br />Scalze asked that City staff determine if the park <br />charge for this property had been paid. <br />Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Blesener, the <br />public hearing was closed. <br />Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />Page 19 <br />