Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />Pedersen asked the feeling of the Council for either <br />enforcement of the ordinance at it relates to <br />billboards or removal of that portion of the ordinance <br />from the books. <br />Scalze pointed out that the ordinance provision exists <br />so that the City does not have billboards up and down <br />Highway 36. <br />Pedersen suggested an option was for the Council to <br />limit the number of billboards allowed in the City to <br />three. <br />Morelan pointed out that the billboards are in <br />violation of the ordinance. However, the City would <br />have to compensate the property owners for removal of <br />the billboards, and this could be very expensive. <br />Scalze pointed out that the Council could take action <br />requiring removal when the lease with Naegele is up. <br />Scalze felt that rights were being conferred onto the <br />Naegele Company that others do not have. <br />Morelan pointed out that at the time the sign was <br />installed it was a conforming use. It is now <br />non-conforming, and there are other non-conforming uses <br />in the City as well, uses which were at one point <br />conforming. <br />Pedersen again suggested that the Council address the <br />billboard issue one way or another. Pedersen asked if <br />the Council was going to enforce the ordinance or not, <br />noting that there seems to be a conscience decision by <br />the Council not to enforce the ordinance because it may <br />be cost prohibitive to do so. Pedersen did point out <br />that denying the PUD amendment would not have ensured <br />removal of the billboard. Pedersen asked what it takes <br />to enforce the ordinance, and whether or not it would <br />be cost prohibitive to do so. <br />Morelan replied that it appeared to him that it would <br />be very expensive to enforce the ordinance. <br />Scalze noted that the intent of the ordinance would be <br />to eliminate non-conforming signs when the opportunity <br />arises. <br />Pedersen again pointed out that denyinq the PUD <br />amendment would not have gotten rid of the billboard. <br />Pedersen felt those two issues were separate. <br />Morelan asked the City Attorney his opinion on the cost <br />involved in enforcing the ordinance. <br />Page 8 <br />