Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 5, 1995 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />One of those being a requirement to either locate a billboard 200 ft. from a residential <br />structure or buffer it as if it were a building being located in that zoning district. The <br />latter part of that requirement should be evaluated since billboards are allowed to be <br />higher than structures, create light and glare, and are difficult to screen. To allow for <br />this section of the ordinance to be studied for possible amendments, staff proposes the <br />Council adopt a moratorium on billboards located closer than 200 ft. to a residential <br />property line. <br /> <br />Mattila indicated that the Planning Commission would most likely be considering this <br />moratorium ordinance at its meeting scheduled November 21, 1995. Benke asked <br />Mattila if an earlier meeting might be held in the interest of moving this matter <br />forward. <br /> <br />Samuelson concurred that it would be worthwhile to explore an earlier meeting before <br />the Planning Commission, and indicated her support for the moratorium ordinance in <br />order to provide more adequate time for considering the merits of this particular case <br />in light of the historical Council actions taken for this particular parcel. These <br />comments were reconfirmed by Larson. <br /> <br />Benke asked the Hauks to provide any input they desired. <br /> <br />Tom Hauk indicated that he initially provided the City with permit information on <br />October 2, 1995. Based on their view of our ordinances, they are of the belief that it <br />met all ordinance requirements at the time of the application. Mr. Hauk indicated <br />that they were not informed of potential obstacles until Wednesday, October 4. Mr. <br />Hauk confirmed that the City Planner did fill him in regarding the history of this <br />parcel and as to the potential areas of concern. However, Mr. Hauk questioned the <br />legality of any action taken at this time by the City Council. Mr. Hauk further <br />indicated that he spoke to three of six residents and none were significantly concerned <br />with the proposed billboard. He indicated his desire to work with the neighborhood <br />to meet satisfactions, but feels the application is legal and should be considered. <br /> <br />City Manager Matthew Fulton indicated that based on additional review of the permit <br />application material, that the application may infact not be in total compliance with <br />current provisions of the zoning ordinance specifically as it relates to structural <br />setbacks both from the existing nearby structure as well as the parcels to the north <br />and south. Samuelson asked if a negative impact would occur as a result of the <br />delay. Mr. Hauk indicated that a delay "could result in damages to his business" and <br />clarified his impression that the Council's intent is to not allow the billboard. <br /> <br />Benke indicated that it was presumptuous to conclude that at this time until additional <br />analysis and thought could be given to the circumstances surrounding this issue. <br /> <br />LeFevere indicated he was contacted by two attorneys involved with this case. One <br />attorney indicated a potential desire to proceed legally against the City. LeFevere <br />also clarified that a property in question has not been actually purchased yet by the <br />Hauks but that only a purchase agreement has been entered into. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Moratorium <br />Ordinance and <br />Resolution on <br />Billboards <br />Report 95-174 <br />Resolution 95-087 <br />Ordinance 613 <br />