PL MINUTES 12151992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 Planning Commission Meeting • 2 December 15, 1992 3 Page Seven 4 5 6 7 3. Sign Ordinance—Options for Nonconforming Signs 8 9 Chair Faust told Mr. Soth he had not clearly understood some of his letters related to 10 amortization and removal of signage. Mr. Soth agreed that this was not an easy topic. He 11 indicated he intended to talk to the Minnetonka City Attorney about Minnetonka's recent 12 ordinance dealing with phasing out buildings which are no longer in conformance with the 13 City's ordinances because he would be interested to learn whether the rezoning and 14 elimination of buildings which had been grandfathered in was really enforceable. _ 15 16 There was a discussion of the Naegele sign case with the City Attorney reiterating that he had 17 later come across a statute which dealt primarily with signage along state highways but which 18 might also be applicable to cities' abilities to phase out nonconforming signs. There was 19 agreement that fixture manufacturers would have to be contacted to determine the useful life 20 of signs before any effort would be made to amortize signage in St. Anthony. When Mr. Soth 21 told the Commissioner any changes proposed that evening could still be made in the 22 recodification to be acted on by the Council at their meeting December 22, Commissioner 23 Madden raised the question about signage for establishments with two frontages. The City 24 Attorney indicated he intended to see to it that the matter was cleared up in the new ordinance. 25 26 4. Separation of Undersized Lots Held in Single Ownership 27 • 28 Chair Faust told the City Attorney that the last issue on which the Commissioners wished to 29 pick his brain was how undersized lots held in single ownership would be handled. Mr. Soth 30 told him the question had first been raised by the City Manager about a situation where there 31 were two lots that were one tax parcel. He said there is much confusion about tax parcels and 32 just because there might be two tax parcels didn't necessarily mean the lots can be separately 33 owned. He indicated the county might issue separate tax statements at the owners request but 34 they often contacted the City to get its approval of the issuance of multiple tax statements. 35 The City Attorney reminded the Commissioners that what really governs isn't how many tax 36 statements are issued but rather the City's subdivision ordinance. Mr. Soth said he didn't 37 think from talking to the City Manager that St. Anthony had a lot of undersized lots as 38 compared to others who have quite a few tiny lots that have cottages on them where you could 39 never build a.home under St. Anthony's ordinances. The situation where people had to 40 combine two or three small lots to get a homnesite would be very difficult for St. Anthony if 41 the owners came in for a building pen-nit and were told the area was too small and they then 42 requested a variance based on the hardship that the area wasn't big enough to build on. Mr. 43 Soth indicated the City wouldn't ever want to let undersized lots get into separate ownership. 44 45 The City Manager was requested to see if there were any situations in the City where the 46 grandfathering of an undersized lot might present a problem and if he found some to refer 47 them to him to deal with specifically. The Attorney told the Commissioners he perceived the 48 issue here was whether there is something the City needs to write into the ordinance to protect 49 against undersized lots being split up or would such a provision create more trouble than it 50 cured. i