Laserfiche WebLink
<br />16 <br /> <br />TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Public Works Director Leon E. Towarnicki for membership on <br />the Transportation Policy Committee, succeeding Councilman <br />Wi 11 iams. <br /> <br />(Note: Vice-Mayor Severt, having recently announced that <br />she will not be a candidate for re-election to <br />Council for a new term beginning July 1, 1986, <br />would not be eligible for membership on such policy <br />committees after her term ends. She is currently a <br />member of the VML's Education Policy Committee.) <br /> <br />Councilman Groden, having been a member of the City's Planning Commission when, in <br /> <br />1980, the Commission recommended that Council adopt certain restrictive amendments <br /> <br />to the "signs" section of the City's Zoning Ordinance, expressed concern that said <br /> <br />amendments--which he supported at that time and Council subsequently adopted--did <br /> <br />not include a "grandfather" clause whereby signs not in conformance with the amend- <br /> <br />ments at that time would be "excused" until such time as they may undergo major <br /> <br />repairs or may be replaced, irrespective of the requirement that all non-conforming <br /> <br />signs must be brought into compliance (with the amended ordinance) within five years, <br /> <br />which period of five years ended in 1985. In expressing his concern, Mr. Groden <br /> <br />recommended--and Council concur~ed--that City Manager Brown study this situation <br /> <br />(its implications and status) for report back to Council at its next regular meeting <br /> <br />and, also, that the City's Board of Zoning Appeals be requested to withhold and defer <br /> <br />action (until after Council receives the report on March 11th) on sign-variance re- <br /> <br />quests now pending before the Board. City Manager Brown, meanwhile, reported that, <br /> <br />at the end of the five-year "grace" period, viz., April, 1985, the City began en- <br /> <br />forcing the compliance provisions with the result that numerous business firms have <br /> <br />incurred the expenses of relocating and/or redesigning their existing signs in order <br /> <br />to comply with the amended sign ordinance, thus raising the question of disparity <br /> <br />should those business firms, whose signs were existing and were non-conforming when <br />