04-18-2006 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Schiferl inquired if there were other non-profit uses that could qualify for a directional sign. Gundlach replied that she worked together with the City’s Attorney to come up with the language for the proposed ordinance, which lists the qualifying non-profits. If a non-profit is not listed within the definition included in the amendment they could not receive a directional sign. O’Keefe inquired if the permit establishes the institution as the owner of the property and responsible for maintenance of the sign. Gundlach replied that in the Safety Standards section there is a Sign Maintenance section that states the owner of the sign is responsible for the maintenance, and keeping the sign in a safe and orderly condition. Baker proposed that item C be struck and add in item F that the City Engineer would be able to select how many signs would be needed for each institution. Mann suggested that items D and E also be struck and follow the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises. Zisla expressed concern that the ordinance is now becoming too vague. Schiferl stated that by not having a limit on the number of signs a problem could be created. He feels that there should be a maximum set in the ordinance. Howard replied that a maximum should be added, but stressed that it would not be possible to allow enough signs to cover every single turn and direction. Fernelius added that staff would appreciate a limit so that the ordinance is clear. Bob Benke, President for the Church Council for Christ the King Lutheran Church, approached the Commission. He stated that there are several locations where two signs would not be adequate, but four should be enough. He believes that three square feet should be large enough for most institutions. He asked for a clarification of the language regarding the sign height; allow some flexibility on how far back the signs should sit from the road and a review of the utility lines for sign placement. Baker inquired if the Commission should table this discussion until next month when the City Engineer can come and give a clarification and set of standards for the ordinance. Fernelius replied that would be appropriate and the staff will look at the MNDOT standards and talk with the City Engineer. Howard requested the number of institutional users that may possibly use this ordinance. 9 to Motion by Schiferl, Second by O’Brien TABLE THIS ORDINANCE UNTIL THE MAY . MEETING MOTION APPROVED. 7 Ayes, 0 Nays. ZA2006-004 Zoning Code Amendment Establishing Park Public Hearing: Dedication Requirements for Commercial & Industrial Property I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\04-18-2006 MINUTES.doc