07-06-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs Planner Sevald explained the Commission reviewed a request for a full-color dynamic display sign for Messiah Lutheran Church at their last meeting. Rather than'denying the request or approving a variance, direction was given to staff to draft a City Code amendment to allow full- color dynamic display signs for schools, churches and institutions in the R-1 zoning district through the conditional use permit process. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve the amendment to City Code as requested. Chair Stevenson asked if a public hearing was required for this request. Planner Sevald reported this portion of the City Code did not require a public hearing. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs. Ayes — 5 Nays — 1 (French) Motion carried. B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution approving/denying a Variance for use of non -amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 County Road 112; Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-003) Planner Sevald requested the Planning Commission consider a variance for a non -amber colored ground sign with dynamic display at 2848 County Road H2 for the Messiah Lutheran Church. He discussed the Ordinance process that would be followed for the Code amendment regarding dynamic display signs in the R-1 zoning district noting the Ordinance would not be in effect until the end of July. Staff recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance request due to the fact the applicant had no practical difficulty. He understood that the denial would delay the sign installation, but supported this action as it would allow the Code amendment to be enacted prior to the sign being constructed. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information on how staff defines practical difficulty. Planner Sevald defined practical difficulty for the Commission.