03-27-2006 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

destruction. The City’s Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the Building Official shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time prior to the destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the event a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the date of destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent properties. Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign. The City should also remove the following references to nonconforming signs from its Sign Ordinance: 1. Section 1008.02. Definition of “Nonconforming Sign.” This definition should be removed because a nonconforming sign is defined in the above amendment. 2. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (h) and (i). These subsections should be removed as billboards are included in the amendment above and because the language is not consistent with the new State Statute. 3. Section 1008.12, subdivision 3. Prohibited Signs. The following language should be removed “[r]oof signs in existence as of the date of enactment of this Code revision may be allowed to continue and may be repaired or maintained as needed, but may not be replaced except by variance.” Repair, maintenance and replacement of roof signs should instead be governed by the revised Section 1008.13 that is stated above. Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendments The City has proposed the following amendments to the Sign Ordinance: 1. Section 1008.09, subd. 2. The proposed change looks fine. 2. Section 1008.10, subd. 1 (f). The proposed change looks fine. 3. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (a). The proposed change looks fine. However, the City will also need to change the paragraph above it to read as follows: “[a] permit shall not be issued for any new billboard unless it complies with the following interim use requirements, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3597. 4. Section 1008.10 subd. 6 (b). The proposed change looks fine. 5. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (c). The proposed change looks fine. 6. Section 1008.10, subd. 6 (f). The proposed change looks fine.