Laserfiche WebLink
Saturday, April 16, 1988 from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight at the Party <br />House, 9539 Highway #10 N.W. <br /> <br />5) Introduction of ordinance amending Chapter 110 of the City Code <br /> regarding regulations for keeping vicious dogs. <br /> <br />6) <br /> <br />Introduction of ordinance amending Chapter 110 of the City Code <br />regarding regulations for keeping horses was removed from the Consent <br />Agenda. Please refer to page 14 for further action. <br /> <br />7) <br /> <br />Adopt Resolution #88-42 authorizing the ~yor and City Administrator to <br />execute an amendment to a joint powers agreement with the County of <br />Anoka for the distribution of landfill abatement funds. (Please refer <br />to resolution file for Resolution #88-42). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Reimann, Councilmembers Pearson, Cox <br />and DeLuca. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmember Sorteberg. <br /> <br />COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Request For Conditional Use Permit To Constru¢~ Advertising <br /> Sign: Case Of Breezy Outdoor. Inc.: <br /> <br />Ms. Norris recalled that City Council reviewed this request to construct an <br />advertising sign at 7009 Hwy. #10 on February 24 and tabled action pending <br />a presentation of the Highway #10 Corridor Study. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that the issue appears to be whether the applicant <br />needs to provide copy of what will be advertised on the sign to insure it <br />complies with Section 170.054 of the City Code which states that signs are <br />permitted only on parcels where the activity advertised is located or <br />within 2500 feet of the parcel on which the subject activity is located. <br /> <br />Polly Shovein - Breezy Outdoor, Inc. - Stated that Breezy Outdoor agrees to <br />comply with the 2500 foot regulation regarding advertising signs. Breezy <br />Outdoor understands that it would take an ordinance amendment to be able to <br />advertise an activity not within 2500 feet of the sign location. Ms. <br />Shovein stated that she has not been able to find any language in the <br />ordinance that requires providing sign copy prior to the issuance of a sign <br />permit and noted that advertising sign copy changes frequently. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich noted that it would be difficult to change advertising copy <br />frequently when it is limited to an activity within 2500 feet of the <br />parcel on which the sign is located. Mr. Goodrich stated that it is <br />reasonable for Council to expect the applicant to submit advertising copy. <br /> <br />Councilmsmber COx stated that the intent of Ramsey's sign ordinance was to <br />allow business owners along Hwy. #10 the option to have an advertising sign <br />along the highway corridor. <br /> <br />Ms. Shovein- Stated that regulating the sign's content to an activity <br />within 2500 feet of the sign is a form censorship and a first amendment- <br />type issue. <br /> <br />City Council/March 8, ].988 <br /> <br />Page 5 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />