Laserfiche WebLink
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> 2 NOVEMBER 17 , 1992 • <br /> 3 PAGE 6 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 D. Sian Ordinance - Consider Amoratization , Other City <br /> 7 Attorney Findincis <br /> 8 <br /> 9 The City Council adopted the revised sign ordinance at its <br /> 10 October 13 , 1992 meeting. At the time the Planning Commission <br /> 11 recommended revisions it was felt that some additional issues <br /> 12 needed further review. The. two main issues for review were <br /> 13 amortization (removal of legal , non-conforming signs) and <br /> 14 removal of illegal non-conforming signs . <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Memos from the City Attorney regarding both of these issues <br /> 17 were included in the agenda packet . He gave a number of <br /> 18 opinions regarding amort.ization . He suggested citations be <br /> 19 issued for illegal non-conforming signs . <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Chairperson Faust felt the first issue, to be addressed by the <br /> 22 Planning Commission was the enforcement feature of sign <br /> 23 removal . He suggested that it should not. be pursued further if <br /> 24 ordinances were not going to be inforced. He felt this is the <br /> 25 case with some of the ordinances and. regulations the City <br /> 26 presently has on the books . <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Urbia suggested that a comprehensive sign ordinance should be <br /> 29 considered. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 It was the opinion of the Chairperson that members of the <br /> 32 Planning Commission were displeased with the present lack of <br /> 33 enforcement of the Sign Ordinance . <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Commissioner Murphy requested a point of clarification <br /> 36 regarding what the City Council wanted the Planning Commission <br /> 37 to act on regarding this matter. Urbia advised it was included <br /> 38 in the agenda for general discussion and recommendations on <br /> 39 the two aforementioned items . <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Chairperson Faust inquired who would represent the City if the <br /> 42 Sign Ordinance was challenged in court . Urbia responded that <br /> 43 the City Attorney would represent the City in these matters . <br /> 44 The City Attorney had stated that amortization would be ill- <br /> 45 advised. <br /> 46 <br /> .47 Commissioner Murphy felt amortization would be an effective <br /> 48 tool for enforcement , although he noted that present <br /> 49 ordinances are not being enforced . <br /> 50 <br /> • <br />