08/31/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3GJ0 e 8/31/70 ~ . ; ~ I I Mr. Leonard Frojen felt there was no question of clarity in the ordinance. He was concerned with the possibility of granting of variances for sign location and felt a great number of requests would be made for similar variances. Mrs. Niven pointed out that the provisions for appeal now in the ordinance I, are quite adequate and would give an applicant every opportunity to make a case with the appeal II board. II Mrs. Hayward agreed that the ordinance. was quite clear, but since Mr. Obie did not appear to agree, II she felt it necessary to amend the ordinance. I Mr. Mohr was afraid this would put one more restrictive standard on the appeal procedure, and that it would be easier to appeal if the ordinance was not amended. . Mrs. Mary Briscoe, League of Women Voters, said she had attended public hearings concerning the sign ordinance, and these things were discussed at that time~... It was felt with Council adoption of the sign ordinance there would be no more discussion or controversy. It was the I hope of her organization the Council would honor the sign ordinance and use the board of appeals to handle this type problem. e Mr. Mohr suggested that the appeal section of the ordinance should be amended to take care of !. existing conditions. The standards suggested by Mr. Gilieaves proposal could be incorporated in I appeal standards and would apply to individual cases. Mr. Mohr suggested adoption of a standard I relating to criticism or public discomfiture, or nuisance. Mrs. Hayward wondered whether just an adjoining property owner could file a complaint, or a citizen could do so. She felt this suggestion should be carefully studied. Mrs. Beal felt any amendment I j to the sign ordinance should be referred to the Council by the Planning Commission.. They should study it first. I Manager agreed that any proposed amendments to the appeal procedure should be referred to the Planning Commission. There was discussion on the exact meaning of the motion and whether it concerned just the future, or also pertained to signs now located. I City Attorney said there was no doubt the ordinance menat what it said, but Mr. Obie had brought to the attorney's attention that he felt the ordinance was ambiguous. This amendment has a little better language than before. I Ii Dr. Purdy asked the City Attorney if it was his opinion that the wording now in the ordinance was i' legal and that the Court would require that Mr. Obie's signs be removed. The City Attorney said if !I the entire ordinance was read there was no question billboards were required to comply with the II 15' setback; and it was his opinion the court would so interpret it. The object of the proposed II amendment is to remove ambiguity. I I ! Mr. Mohr was concerned about the affect of the amendment on billboards both now and in the I. future, and said he would withhold unanimous consent on the council bill until some provision was jl made for amendment to provisions of appeal. Ii I II Mrs. Niven pointed out that the amortization period would not expire for three years, and at that I' time, if it appeared necessary, provisillons for appeal could be amended. II Vote taken on motion. Motion carried. Dr. Purdy, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Teague voted no. I , 3. Storm Sewer Financing, Lutheran Laymen's League - Mr. Richard Unruh outlined problems faced with FHA financing for a low rent project proposed by the Lutheran Laymen's League. 11 They are requesting city assistance with 'financing a drainage ditch. An agreement has to be reached with the City prior to execution of a contract. Therefore, they are -- II requesting agreement before finding out the actual cost of the sewer project. They II are also requesting engineering be done by the City for extension of Hawthorne Avenue, and that this be part of the contract~ I Mrs. Niven explained that the amount requested was approximately $7,000. The .Council has set a policy to aid public housing by private developers by helping, if necessary, I with public improvements. I Councilwoman Hayward said she was totally in sympathy, but asked for clarification of the.policy. Mrs. Niven clarified that the housing policy for the city sets forth a policy to encourage private developers, and if necessary, participate in public improvement costs. I The City Manager explained this request and that any decision would probably be precedent setting. He said the/amount requested had not been budgeted and funds would have to be used which had I ; not been specifically allocated for this purpose. I In answer to Councilman Williams, the City Manager sa~d the city had not participated in this particular type project previously, but had provaded a fixed amount to a particular subdivision. Mrs. Niven agreed there was a problem of precedent, and suggested the Council set a policy with an arbitrary limit, possibly related to an amount per unit, rather than a flat amount. She !\ e 8/31/70 - 11 ~::