Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Approved <br /> <br /> <br />MOTION APPROVED. <br />5 Ayes, 2 Nays. <br /> <br /> <br />Public Hearings: ZA2006-006 Zoning Code Amendment Related to Directional <br />Signage for Institutional Uses <br />The Commission held a public hearing on April 18, 2006 to discuss a Zoning Code <br />amendment related to directional signage for institutional uses. This amendment was <br />drafted in response to a letter received from Christ the King Lutheran Church and <br />direction by the City Council. In response to the concerns raised at the last meeting, staff <br />contacted a MnDOT representative responsible for signing and markings within the <br />Metro District Traffic Office and also met with the Director of Public Works. Staff <br />learned that the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) <br />was adopted to ensure that all municipalities use signage standards. While MnDOT <br />recognizes that municipalities have the authority to place whatever signage they deem <br />necessary within their right-of-ways, everyone has to conform to state law. MnDOT <br />doesn’t permit directional signs for institutional uses within the metro area, nor does <br />Ramsey County permit these signs (although not enforcing these rules if these signs <br />appear). <br /> <br />The intention of the proposed ordinance was to rely on the Director of Public Works to <br />ensure the design and placement of all signs meet uniform standards as these signs would <br />typically appear with in the right of way. The City Code/Zoning Code currently does not <br />allow this type of signage. Based on the information researched and the concerns of the <br />Director of Public Works, staff finds that the current ordinance prohibiting directional <br />signage within City rights-of-way should not be changed. <br /> <br />Staff has contacted the church and alerted them about our recommendation. If the church <br />withdraws their proposal, no formal action is needed. In the event the church wants to <br />move forward, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission deny the request. <br /> <br />Baker stated that he is concerned that if an institution puts up a sign illegally there is no <br />repercussions. Gundlach replied that staff recognizes that concern and was the reason <br />that this ordinance was first proposed. She added that any signs that are put in City right <br />of way are removed. Additionally, with regard to the existing church directional signs, <br />the Director of Public Works has suggested that if the City Council and Commission <br />wish, a letter could be sent to the County requesting that the illegally placed signs on <br />county roads be removed. Baker replied that he would like to have a standardization of <br />signs, so these issues can be addressed properly. Fernelius stated that in the MnDOT <br />manual various informational signs are address, churches are not. He added that staff <br />was looking for a standard to help the City avoid visual clutter. If there is a strong desire <br />for a sign standard then staff will readdress this issue, however the experts that the City <br />looked to for help have stated that this may be a problematic issue. <br />I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\05-16-2006 MINUTES.doc Page 4 of 13 <br /> <br />