Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />January 23, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Williams asked what is the number of rented single family homes in New Brighton. <br />Mattila said there are about 98 non-homesteaded single family homes in New Brighton. <br />Williams found the realtors to be unwavering of their opinion that the program is not <br />needed. The realtors assumed the investigation would be performed by staff as opposed <br />to contract investigators, and that repairs needed to be done before the house is sold. He <br />feels the program could lend itself to many options, and in some cases many buyers <br />would rather make repairs in their own fashion. <br /> <br />Larson said the Planning Commissioners suggested that inspection reports performed by <br />the realtors may be an excellent method to evaluate the City's housing stock. Also, the <br />City could consider a funding program for homeowners to make repairs and <br />improvements to their properties. Benke emphasized the need to provide safe housing in <br />a non-intrusive way much like working with the realtors in a cooperative effort. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Larson, to SUPPORT THE HOUSING <br />COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO NOT ADOPT A POINT OF SALE <br />PROGRAM AT THIS TIME, BUT CONTINUE TO MONITOR HOUSING <br />CONDITIONS IN THE CITY AND REINVESTIGATE THE POINT OF SALE <br />PROGRAM AT SOME FUTURE DATE, IF NECESSARY, ALSO, TO EXAMINE <br />THE POSSIBILITY OF LICENSING SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Mattila presented amendments to the Sign Ordinance. <br /> <br />In January, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider changes to the <br />billboard section of the Sign Ordinance. The Commission recommends that Council <br />direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to Section 9-130 of the Sign <br />Ordinance prohibiting new billboards in the City. <br /> <br />Staff surveyed nine surrounding cities to see how they regulated billboards, and was <br />surprised at how permissive the New Brighton Sign Ordinance is in relation to <br />billboards. Of the nine cities, five adopted regulations which prohibit new billboards. <br />Mounds View is in the process of prohibiting new billboards, and Fridley is actively <br />eliminating existing billboards through code enforcement and property negotiations. <br />New Brighton requires billboards be setback 200 ft. from a residential property line or <br />150 ft. from a structure, however, other cities require billboards be setback 500 ft. from <br />residential lines. As for billboard height limitations, many other communities restrict <br />billboards to 25 ft. as compared to New Brighton's limitation to 35 ft. in height. <br /> <br />Staff prepared five options, and the Planning Commission recommended Option #5 <br />(Amending of Section 9-130 of the Sign Ordinance to prohibit new billboards). Benke <br />asked how many existing billboards would be affected by Option #5. Mattila said the II <br />existing billboards which are on 1-694 and 35W would not be impacted, but no new <br />billboards would be allowed. Benke confirmed that the existing billboards would then <br />become non-conformities if Option #5 were adopted. <br /> <br />Gunderman asked if the City could establish an amortization period by which all existing <br />billboards be removed. LeFevere said it is permissible by law to allow a non- <br />conforming use to continue until the investment is recouped. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Point of Sale Program <br />Report 96-026 <br /> <br />Amendments to Sign <br />Ordinance - Billboards <br />Report 96-027 <br />