Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br /> 2 SEPTEMBER 8 , 1992 <br /> 3 PAGE 15 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 <br /> 7 The City Attorney will review the ordinance and make any <br /> 8 necessary changes before the second reading is held. <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Councilmember Marks recalled that political signs had been <br /> 11 discussed at the. Council work session and consideration had <br /> 12 been given to eliminating them. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 The City Attorney advised that state statute does not allow <br /> 15 the banning of some of the political signs discussed. He felt <br /> 16 the Council did not have the flexibility to eliminate them. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Councilmember Fleming stated that this Council should not make <br /> 19 this type of decision which may affect Councils of the future. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 On page eight in the paragraph which addressed political <br /> signs , Councilmember Marks suggested that the last sentence <br /> read "Political signs are not allowed in the street right-of- <br /> ways . " <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Councilmember Wagner inquired if the ordinance would authorize <br /> 27 the removal of signs on a vacant building. The City Manager <br /> 28 responded that the ordinance does not presently contain any <br /> 29 language which would address this situation . <br /> 30 <br /> 31 The City Attorney felt it may be questionable to authorize <br /> 32 this as there does not appear to be any authority for doing <br /> 33 it . In the case of a hazardous building, action can be taken <br /> 34 against the owner of the building via a citation or the <br /> 35 prosecuting in a civil suit . <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Councilmember Wagner questioned if sign removal can be made a <br /> 38 part of the sign permit . Removal of the sign could be done and <br /> 39 the cost could be assessed back to the owner. The- City Manager <br /> 40 suggested this could be done on the basis of the building <br /> -41 being vacant for six months . <br /> 42 <br /> 43 The City Attorney stated this matter could be included in the <br /> 44 ordinance but this provision still would not authorize the <br /> 45 City to remove a sign . The permit could include a provision <br /> 46 whereby the building owner would agree to remove a sign if a <br /> 47 building were vacant for a specific period of time. <br /> aThe City Attorney also was concerned with the storage or <br /> 50 placement of a sign which has been taken down . <br />