Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 <br />The City Attorney indicated that he would have to look <br />at the ordinances. <br />Scalze again stated that she felt the property should <br />be brought into conformity. Scalze pointed out that <br />when the Sign Ordinance was amended, it provided for a <br />five-year sunset clause for billboards, which the City <br />has not aggressively pursued. Scalze pointed out that <br />other properties are brought into conformity as the <br />opportunity arises. <br />Morelan asked if the Sign Ordinance was amended after <br />the original PUD was granted. <br />Jones reported that the original PUD was approved in <br />May of 1983, and the City Planner indicated that the <br />current Sign Ordinance was adopted on July 25, 1984. <br />Scalze suggested that the City Attorney look at the <br />issue and how it relates to a PUD. Scalze felt that <br />the City would be remiss if it missed an opportunity to <br />bring a property into conformity. <br />Jones pointed out that he was requesting to build the <br />final phase of a project which is very much in line <br />with the original site plan which was submitted in <br />1983. The original PUD agreement references future <br />buildings, and the intent to construct future buildings <br />for mini-storage use. <br />Morelan agreed that if the City wants the billboard <br />removed, now is the time to require it. Morelan also <br />pointed out that Two S Properties is requesting <br />additional square footage over what was included in the <br />original PUD, and that additional space will bring <br />additional revenue to Two S Properties. <br />Jones again pointed out the long-term lease agreement <br />with Naegele. If a condition of approval of the PUD <br />amendment is the removal of the billboard, Naegele may <br />want to be involved in looking into whatever legal <br />situation would occur over that stipulation. The <br />billboard has a considerable amount of value, and <br />Naegele would have a great deal of interest in <br />protecting that value. Jones did not believe the lease <br />agreement provided him any right to demand the removal <br />of the billboard. <br />Pedersen pointed out that the billboard is an illegal <br />activity, and indicated that the Two S request is an <br />opportunity for the City to enforce the Code. The <br />relationship between Two S Properties and Naegele is <br />not the City's concern. The City's concern is to be <br />Page 6 <br />