Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sign Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hastings council tables update to sign code, nonconforming-use rules and small wind regulations
Summary
The Hastings City Council tabled Ordinance No. 4802, which would update the city sign code, clarify nonconforming uses and modify small wind energy system rules, after staff and council identified wording and cross-reference issues.
The Hastings City Council on June 9 tabled Ordinance No. 4802, an omnibus update to the city sign code that also revises rules for nonconforming uses and small wind energy systems, so staff can correct code references and related language.
City planner Amber (last name not specified in the record) told the council the draft ordinance is intended to “promote the public health, safety, and welfare through effective and consistent sign ordinances that are content neutral and focus on time, manner, and place only.” She described a reorganization that puts each zoning district on its own page and said the changes are meant to clarify sign area, height and types across agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial districts.
The proposed nonconformity provisions would allow preexisting signs and buildings to remain and be maintained but limit expansion of nonconforming elements; Amber said the draft also includes a damage threshold such that a structure damaged more than 60% would have to be rebuilt in conformance with current code. She told the council, “we will not actively search for nonconformities.”
Council members raised implementation questions during discussion, including who enforces damaged or unsafe signs and whether references to an abolished “board of public works” remain in the draft wind-energy language. A council member asked whether fees would apply to small wind systems; Amber said such devices would generally follow the building-permit process because they are structures. City staff noted the draft contained at least one outdated cross-reference and that a corrected version could be returned without repeating the public hearing.
After discussion, Councilmember Konsbrook moved to table the ordinance so staff could clean up the code text; the motion to table passed 6-0.
Because the council closed the public hearing before voting, no new public testimony will be required when the ordinance returns, but staff said they will correct the identified references and bring the item back at a later meeting.
