Laserfiche WebLink
<br />purchase of sign making equipment in the amount of $20,000 to facilitate the production of these <br />needed address signs as soon as possible; and (c) that staff identify and send notices to . <br />developers who are responsible for the installation of these signs pursuant to their development <br />agreements with the City. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Elvig, Councilmembers Olson and Cook. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Case #4: <br /> <br />Consider Penalties for Violations of the Sign Ordinance <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained the general provisions section of Chapter 9.12 of the City <br />Code prohibits all signs except those placed by governmental units within the public rights-of- <br />way. The Public Works Department has been diligent in enforcing this provision of the <br />ordinance and h~ been removing violating signs whenever such signs are discovered or <br />reported. Removed signs are discarded; however the low cost of many of these signs causes the <br />same type of violation to occurrepeatedIy. This effort causes an expenditure ofP~blic Works <br />staff time andresources and defeats the desired goal of maintaining the rights-of-way free of <br />advertising signage. Mr., Jankowski stated staff feels that a progressive policy for dealing with <br />repeated violations would have a positive effect on achieving the goal of maintaining the rights- <br />of-way free of unauthorized signage. He reviewed the following suggested progressive system: <br /> <br />Second Violation <br /> <br />Phone call advising the sign owner of the City Code prohibiting <br />signs in the rights of way. <br />A certified letter warning that placement of additional signs will <br />result in penalties being assessed. <br />Issuing of citations for violation of the sign ordinance. <br /> <br />. First. violation <br /> <br />Third Violation <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated staffis seeking input from the Committee on this proposal as <br />well as the duration of the intervals between violations and amount of the fine to be assessed. He <br />advised staff recommends that an amendment to the sign ordinance be developed with the <br />assistance of the City Attorney to allow for progressive penalties for repeated violationS of the <br />placement of signs in thepublic rights-of-way. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook noted the last time this was discussed by the Committee it was detennined <br />that there should not be any exemptions from the ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson commented the signs that are left in these areas are ahnost alittering <br />situation. She questioned what the fine would be for littering. . <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson replied the littering fine could be $200. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec suggested real estate open house signs could be posted the day of the open house, <br />and removed that day. <br /> <br />Motion by Chairperson Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to recommend to City Council <br />that an amendment to the sign ordinance be developed with the assistance of the City Attorney to <br /> <br />Public Works Committee I April 18, 2006 <br />Page 6 oflO <br />