Retroreflectivity

Have you seen the new regulatory signs along our roadways? You may not know that these are new, unless you drive by them at night. You’ll know it’s a new sign as the reflection from your headlights will be very bright. Some say it almost blinds you. I don’t know about that but do know you can tell the difference.

What has happened is the federal government has changed the standards for signage for any public street, highway or bicycle trail open to the public. The new standard deals with retroreflectivity as many signs were difficult, at best, to see in the dark hours. Due to age the reflective qualities of older signs are greatly diminished. With this new approach, signs will need to meet new standards for reflectivity on an ongoing basis.

Meeting the new requirements requires the city adopt a policy concerning the maintenance of signs. What this means is signs need to be reviewed for night time visibility (reflective qualities) and replaced when they no longer meet the requirements. Doing this involves the adoption of a policy concerning how this will be achieved.

In Breezy Point the City Council adopted a policy concerning the maintenance of signs. The policy provides that in meeting the law we will replace signs on a routine planned basis. This helps to minimize costs. Inspections will be used to determine if a sign meets the standards but the policy also provides that signs must be replaced on a periodic basis. It is anticipated that the duration of sign use would be 10-12 years. All signs would be replaced on this schedule, at a minimum.

This effort is not cheap. Each sign, like stop signs, cost about $100 per sign to replace. Eliminating signs that don’t provide benefit keeps our costs down. Under the policy some signs will be eliminated. Keeping the costs in check is also being done with a phased approach to installation. All regulatory signs need to be replaced by January of 2015. All overhead guide and street name signs will be replaced by January 2018.

The city has an inventory of all signs within the city. We have started the process of replacement and an annual budget has been prepared to address these replacements. To meet the ongoing needs of replacement our annual cost will be about $5,500. This mandate has increased our sign budget dramatically over the past when we only replaced stolen or damaged signs. Safety is important and we understand the need for change but given economic conditions it’s a tough time to make this transition but necessary.

Given the new approach to signage we’ll be safer and hopefully we won’t get lost in the dark of night.

Variances

I’m sure it wasn’t the top of your agenda but if you needed to address a variance from zoning regulations you have been out of luck for about two years if you lived in a city. The good news is the legislature finally found a solution that was adopted in state law to solve the problem.

What had happened was there was a court ruling concerning a variance request in the city of Minnetonka. Variances in the past were considered when a “hardship” existed. The hardship had to be with a situation that exists with the land and can not be created by the applicant or a former owner. The hardship can not be economic in nature. The courts ruled that a “hardship” means there is no other use of the property rather than the traditional or former approach to the definition.

Counties on the other hand have a different standard in state law, that of “practical difficulty”. Essentially the definitions are the same but with counties they continued to have the ability to grant variances. The legislature finally determined that the standard of “practical difficulty” could be used for cities making that change in state law.

Cities now have the ability to grant variances under the statues regardless of how local ordinances are written. It is always helpful however to eliminate confusion in the code provisions by having the local ordinances match state law, even though state law supersedes local codes. The Planning Commission reviewed their code provision regarding the change in state law and made some minor modifications to it. With that recommendation the City Council approved the change in the code. Ordinance 11-09, 3rd Series was adopted and now the city is in conformance with state law regarding the issuance of variances.

All that being said the granting of variances is not something the Planning Commission (as the Board of Review) takes lightly. As stated at the start the conditions for a variance are rather strict. The new “practical difficultly” is no different that the old “hardship”. The conditions must run with the land and not be self imposed or economic in nature. A variance can not be granted for a use. Variances are typically for setbacks or other specific requirements of the code.

The granting of a variance is a process and an outcome. Requesting a variance requires a fee be paid and a public hearing held. Property owners within 350 feet of the property are mailed notice to comment on the proposal. After reviewing the facts and hearing from the public the Planning Commission makes a determination. If a variance is granted a document is recorded that runs with the land providing for the deviation in zoning requirements.

Just because we now have the authority doesn’t mean they are easy to come by. If you are thinking about one, contact city staff to discuss your proposal and whether or not the granting is feasible. Only the Planning Commission can approve or deny a request.

Impacts

The current state of the Minnesota shutdown is a bit perplexing. Both sides have dug in their heels and are firmly entrenched in their point of view. It seems they are looking to be winners if their side prevails but really there are no winners in all of this. Legislators have a job to do and it seems they are just spinning their wheels. Part of being a leader is looking at compromises or finding solutions to get the job done.

The shutdown may save some money with the lack of payrolls but it also costs money for the actions necessary to work through the layoff process. It costs the state (and some local governments) funds to pay unemployment compensation. It costs us all in the inaction of moving forward. Services have been halted and some unexpected outcomes come into play.

In Breezy Point the only inconvenience I have heard about is the beach closing on Pelican Lake. This popular spot is fenced and the gates are closed. We fortunately have our liquor licenses on a calendar basis so there aren’t concerns with these but the state gives final approval on almost all liquor licenses.

The city gets very little money from the state so that isn’t really an issue at this point. Local Government Aid and Market Value Homestead Credit were removed from our revenue sources a few years ago. The city receives Police Aid from the state and we’re hoping this revenue source isn’t cut with their budget discussions and final legislation.

Aside from that the impact on the City of Breezy Point is only in terms of our need to work with state agencies or secondary impacts with others we work with who rely on them. I hope for all our sakes that the issues are resolved soon. A prolonged shutdown isn’t in anyone’s best interest nor is it good for the State of Minnesota. We have a reputation as having good government but right now that concept is questionable.