Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />AMENDMEN`P Hanson opened the continuation of public hearing to <br />TO PUD consider application of Two S Properties for an <br />TWO S amendment to PUD to allow the construction of an <br />PROPERTIES additional mini-storage building to the site at 55 East <br />County Road B. Hanson noted that both the Planning <br />Commission and City Planner have recommended approval <br />of the PUD amendment request. <br />Morelan noted that the issue that has been raised is <br />whether or not the billboard on the Two S property is <br />conforming or non-conforming. <br />The City Attorney reported that under the City's <br />present ordinance the billboard is a non-conforming use <br />as he has indicated in a confidential memo submitted to <br />the Council this evening. The Attorney reported that <br />in discussions with the attorney representing Naegele, <br />it is their position that if the billboard is removed <br />they would expect compensation under the provisions of <br />the Outdoor Display Act. <br />Scalze stated that she was confused whether or not the <br />Outdoor Display Act regulated ordinances which <br />designate billboards to be non-conforming uses, <br />specifically ordinances which have sunset provisions. <br />The City Attorney replied that this is Naegele's <br />position, and noted that a case like this has not been <br />tried in the State of Minnesota. Cases which have been <br />tried in Minnesota are relative to the State's taking <br />in instances where billboards existed in right-of-way. <br />One case specifically was where the State acquired <br />right-of-way, and it was determined that there were <br />property rights relating to both the billboard and the <br />property. <br />Aanson felt there were two issues involved, the first <br />being the request for a PUD amendment for an additional <br />mini-storage building, and the second being the issue <br />of non-conforming signs. Hanson noted that there are <br />three billboard in the City, and felt that any action <br />by the Council should be directed at all three <br />billboards uniformly. <br />Scalze felt that could be done only if the exact ground <br />rules were in place for all three billboards. Scalze <br />did not believe that all three billboards were located <br />on property governed by a PUD. Scalze noted that in <br />this instance the property owner is requesting a change <br />to the PUD Agreement, therefore, the City has some <br />control over the situation. The City either agrees to <br />the change being requested or not. <br />Page 4 <br />