|
 At the introduction of the topic, City Administrator Clay Johnson
said the vote for Tuesday would decide if the aldermen want to annex
the property. If they had voted yes, a second vote would have been
held on February 1st, approving the specific ordinance that would
make the annexation official.
With seven aldermen present, when the vote was taken the motion to
approve failed by a vote of 5-2. Aldermen who voted “no” were Rick
Hoefle, Kathy Horn, Todd Mourning, Steve Parrott and Tracy Welch.
Those who voted “yes” were Michelle Bauer and Jeff Hoinacki.
During the discussion before the vote on the topic, aldermen briefly
reviewed the financial aspects of the annexation, with City
Treasurer Chuck Conzo repeating what had been said at the January
12th Committee of the Whole meeting. Annexation of the property and
the addition of a billboard as an “improvement” to the property
would increase the property tax collected by the city. The city
would also benefit from sales tax collected by two of the businesses
currently located on the property.
 Waste Treatment Manager Tim Ferguson also spoke, saying that the
cost of connecting the business building to the city sewerage system
would cost far less than the cost implied at the January 12th
meeting. He said that the city could tap into a main that was within
200 feet of the business, and the cost would be less than $10,000.
It was also explained by Johnson that if the annexation request
passed, it would still be contingent upon the Lincoln Zoning Board
of Appeals approving the billboard, as well as a request for a
variance from current city code. The billboard, if erected would be
less than 50 feet from a structure. This is against zoning code, so
the ZBA would have to give the property owner, Becky Werth,
permission to build the billboard that close to a building.
The discussion then turned to the billboard, with Parrott voicing
concern over driver distraction. He asked Police Chief Paul Adams to
comment if the billboard could be a distraction that would lead to
more accidents at the intersection of Woodlawn Road and Lincoln
Parkway. It was noted that intersection is a high-incident area in
the city. Adams said he didn’t believe a new billboard would have
that much of an impact on the number of accidents at the
intersection. Parrott also asked what, in the chief’s opinion, was
the cause for the high number of accidents there. Adams said many of
the accidents were caused by people turning left when they cannot
clearly see through the intersection. He said some accidents could
probably be blamed on distracted driving.
Mourning noted that in the recent strategic planning meeting, the
city had said they wanted to increase the annexation of properties
to the city, so the annexation in itself would be a good thing.
However, his concern was the billboard and the variance. He wondered
if the city was opening a door for other businesses also to seek the
same variance. Johnson said to clarify, it would be the ZBA that
would hear and decide on whether or not to allow the variance.
 Welch said that earlier in the day, he had decided to take a drive
down Woodlawn and check out the billboards already in existence. He
noted that from Interstate 55, east to RP Lumber, there are eight
billboards. In addition, Welch said there are already three
billboards in two-tenths of a mile from Wal-Mart to the Four Corners
Lube. He concluded that there were already too many billboards, and
noted that the billboards “clutter the skyline.” Johnson said the
council had the option to amend the code on billboards in general,
making it stricter if they wished. Bauer recalled that the request
for annexation was contingent upon the approval of the billboard by
the ZBA. She said if that does not happen, then the agreement would
be nullified at that point. She then made a motion to approve the
annexation request, saying she wanted to do that so that the ZBA
could do their job. Her motion was seconded by Hoinacki.
[to top of second column] |
Parrott asked if the ZBA were to approve this request, then should the city come
back and set up new guidelines for billboards. Johnson said the city could
certainly do that.
Hoefle then asked if that would be opening a whole new “can of worms” if the
city allowed this one billboard, then changed the rules. He said he felt like
the current annexation request was being "pushed through.”
Bauer said, “In response to that, the ordinance sits as is, and up to this point
have any variances been granted. Have any of the billboards at this point in
time been positioned by variance?” Johnson and Mayor Marty Neitzel agreed that,
to their knowledge, no variance had ever been granted.
Mourning asked, “So if we approve it (the annexation that is contingent on the
approval of the billboard), are we sending a vote of confidence to the ZBA to
then approve the variance?”
Johnson said he could not answer that, and Mourning noted that it appeared that
the ZBA was awaiting the city's decision. Johnson then clarified that the ZBA
has not yet been brought into the matter, thus, they are not waiting to hear
from the council. He further explained that city staff was bringing the
annexation request before the council. If the council does not desire to have
the annexation, then there is no need to involve the ZBA at this time.
Hoinacki returned to the comment from Hoefle regarding opening a can of worms.
He said that the council could suspend construction of new billboards until it
has time to review the current codes.
Building and safety officer John Lebegue said there had been a suspension of
billboards a few years ago pending new guidelines that were being written.
Lebegue also noted that right now, there are many billboards in the city that
are not compliant with current code because they were put up before the code was
amended.
The final comment on the subject was made by Welch, who said that he felt the
ordinance needed to be re-visited. “I think we need to go back and look at the
ordinance at some point and address some of these concerns. I don’t know that it
has much bearing on this particular topic, but we do need to address it.”
With that, Neitzel called for the vote, which failed with five no's and two
yeses.
During the meeting, it was also brought up from last week that Werth’s request
constituted a voluntary annexation. Johnson said the city could do a
non-voluntary annexation in which the request for the billboard would not be
part of the consideration. He noted, however, that doing a non-voluntary
annexation would be a more complicated process.
[Nila Smith]
 |
