Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK <br /> <br />INVOCATION <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF <br />ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />MINUTE <br />APPROVAL <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />SIGNS <br /> <br />f <br /> <br />'IV), ,-t'- ~ <br />'\ .._ j' I <br />1/ d <br /> <br />18:7415 <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA <br /> <br />REGULAR MEETING <br /> <br />FEBRUARY 18,1969 <br /> <br />The City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, met in regular <br />session in the Council Chamber of the Arcadia City Hall on February <br />18, 1969, at 8:00 P.M. <br /> <br />Councilman Edward L. Butterworth <br /> <br />Mayor Don W. Hage <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Arth, Butterworth, Considine, Helms, Hage <br />None <br /> <br />The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 4, 1969, were APPROVED <br />on MOTION by Councilman Helms, seconded by Councilman Butterworth and <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Extensive discussion was held on the proposed new sign ordinance, <br />which would amend, repeal and add to certain regulations relating <br />to signs. The twelve page document was perused page by page and each <br />individual councilman indicated areas with which he differed. <br /> <br />With reference to signs to be prohibited, page three, Councilman <br />Butterworth stated in part that he favored a provision in the <br />ordinance which would regulate but not prohibit moving or rotating <br />signs; that if moving signs are prohibited and the Van de Kamp <br />sign is not included the law would not be uniform and the City <br />Manager would be placed in an untenable position inasmuch as he <br />is charged with enforcing the law. He felt the Council should <br />take a moderate position by opposing moving signs and that under <br />a proper showing they could be permitted. <br /> <br />In referring to the action of the Council at the time the Van de <br />Kamp sign was permitted, Mayor Hage stated in part that it was <br />considered part of the architecture and not a sign per se; that <br />he could not in all fairness insist on the abatement of that <br />particular moving sign under the conditions. Whereupon he MOVED <br />to allow moving signs currently in operation and to disallow all <br />future requests for moving signs. (MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A <br />SECOND) . <br /> <br />Following further discussion Councilman Considine MOVED to accept <br />the definitions and prohibitions concerning movable signs, on <br />page three, Motion seconded by Councilman Arth and carried on roll <br />call vote as follows: <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br /> <br />Councilmen Arth, Considine, Helms <br />Councilmen Butterworth, Rage <br />None <br /> <br />2-18-69 <br /> <br />-1- <br />