11-27-1990 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ e "~ e e Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1990 Page 4 Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Chairman Kimball closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE 66 FT. VARIANCE ON THE AMOUNT OF FRONTAGE BY DON RAHN REFERENCING STAFF'S MEMO DATED 11/16/90 INCLUDING THE FOUR STIPULATIONS FOR THE LOT SPLIT. COMMISSIONER BISCHOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0. 8. Ordinance Amendment. Section 900.22 (Si~n Ordinance) by the City of Elk River/P.H. Steve Rohlf explained draft ordinance #1 indicating that this ordinance would be a mechanism to allow the continuation, alteration, reconstruction or relocation of legal nonconforming signs, which would lead to a better situation for the City. Mr. Rohlf stated that a number of businesses in town can not upgrade their signs, because the upgrading would still not conform with the City's sign ordinance. He stated that staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. Chairman Kimball opened the public hearing. Steve Rohlf submitted a letter from Houle Oil Company, Inc. to be entered into the public record. He stated that Mr. Houle was in favor of the request as approval of this request would be better for the city and businesses in Elk River. Commissioner Eberley raised the question at what point does a grandfathered- in sign lose its nonconforming status, such as a sign being blown down. Mr. Rohlf stated that the intent of the ordinance is that a, nonconforming situation could be altered bringing the signage closer to conformity without losing the grandfathered-in status. Mr. Rohlf stated that the sign ordinance currently states that if a sign is damaged by 50% or more it may lose its grandfathered- in nonconforming status. According to the City code, the word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive. Chairman Kimball asked what is the purpose of a nonconfornming clause? Tim Keane, City Attorney stated that the intent is to allow the property owner the right to continue the use that they have invested in (signs) and hopefully to phase out nonconforming signs over time to be in compliance with the existing regulations. During discussion one of the questions raised was whether nonconforming sign requests should come before both bodies (City Council & Planning Commission) or just one. It was the general consensus that all nonconforming sign issues should come before the both the Commission and Council. Steve Rohlf explained that the signs in Elk River would move closer to conformity faster with the new ordinance. After discussing this issue, the Planning Commission also thought the ordinance amendment was appropriate and recommended approval. The