PL MINUTES 03212000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 21, 2000 Page 2 1 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 2 City Manager Michael Morrison provided a background of this issue for the Commission by stat- 3 ing that on September 9, 1999, a representative from Nativity Lutheran Church and the sign con- 4 tractor filed a sign permit with City Staff in order to "change the sign out front." The representa- 5 tive had indicated that the sign was being modified in order to update the appearance and make it 6 easier to maintain. The dimensions, location, footings, electrical wiring and base of the sign 7 would remain the same. 8 Upon review of the City's sign ordinance, Section 1400.08, Subd. 15, allows for the replacement 9 of existing business identification signs. It states that "a business identification sign designed to 10 replace an existing business identification sign which lawfully exists under this Code [is I l permitted] so long as the new sign has the same dimensions and is in the same location as the 12 existing sign, and is not a prohibited sign under Section 1400.007." A review of Section 13 1400.007, Subd. 4, determined that a business is prohibited from having signs within the Public 14 Right of Way or Public Easement. At the time that the sign permit was approved, Staff 15 mistakenly thought the right-of-way was 15 feet, thus making the sign conforming. 16 Public Works Director, Jay Hartman, determined that the right-of-way on Silver Lake Road is 33 feet, which represents half of the road width. Thus,the existing sign for Nativity Lutheran Church is 4 feet in the right-of-way. 19 Furthermore, the Church was constructed in 1958 and the sign was installed at approximately the 20 same time. Since the City's ordinance was codified in 1976, both the Church and identifying 21 signs are "grandfathered in" with regard to the setback requirements of the ordinance. 22 In addition, a resident had contacted Staff and questioned the Church's sign and its possible 23 placement in the right-of-way. The resident also questioned the landscaping surrounding the 24 sign, as well as the design and location of the sign. 25 Morrison directed the Commission's attention to a letter dated March 1, 2000 from City Attorney 26 William Soth which reviewed his interpretation of the variance issue. In part, Mr. Soth's letter 27 stated that: 28 ". . . [the City Staff) and the Planning Commission have raised the question of whether the City 29 should consider a variance for the alterations to the sign. If the sign is considered to be a non- 30 conforming structure, it may be continued only so long as it remains otherwise lawful and com- 31 plies with the provisions of Section 1660.02. Under this section, it may not be `enlarged, ex- 32 tended, reconstructed, replaced or moved, except to change it to a conforming use."' 33 Mr. Soth continued to state his understanding that the sign is being altered, but it is not being en- larged, extended, replaced or moved. Additionally, he stated in his letter that it was not clear 0 whether the sign was being "reconstructed." 36 Consequently, if the City concluded that the sign was not being "reconstructed," it could be