Laserfiche WebLink
<br />be very clear that the obstruction put in the right-of-way is not a City liability and that it is the <br />homeowners association that would be responsible for any lawsuits that come out of that <br />situation. Secondly, the reason this is even being considered is because it is an aesthetic <br />condition to the subdivision and the sign would create an entrance into the subdivision that will <br />look appealing and will market the subdivision and the City. In the area of Alpine Drive and <br />Yute Street, there was a median introduced that looks terrible now, years after the developer had <br />installed it, and it is now the responsibility of the homeowners association. This sign being <br />discussed has advantages, but if it looks like an eyesore the responsibility to remove it needs to <br />be the association's, not the City's. Also, the conditional use permit needs to require a review <br />period. Mr. Olson noted it should be considered whether the homeowners association will be <br />able to take on the $20,000 obligation ifthe sign were to be run into and damaged, and to be able <br />to do that in a timely manner without the sign looking like an eyesore. These types of issues <br />would need to be clarified in the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec questioned how time maintenance requirements for damaged signs would be <br />written into the conditional use p~rmit. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson replied these requirements could be as lenient or as strict as is seen <br />fit. The permit would include a statement requiring that upon written notification of the City of <br />disrepair, the sign needs to be replaced within the specified number of days. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Olson asked whether the homeowners association would have insurance on <br />the sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson replied not likely. If the sign were to be hit they may need to remove it. The other <br />alternative would be to place two monuments on their private property, which would have some <br />of the same problems if the sign is not maintained, but would not have the issue of being in the <br />right-of-way. This is not an easy decision for them. They will be spending a lot of money with <br />the benefit of jazzing up the development and making it a little more ofa distinctive community. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen expressed concern with the possibility of the City being named in a <br />lawsuit if there were to be a fatal accident due to a site line issue. He suggested the homeowners <br />association be required to include indemnification language in their premises insurance policy <br />stating if the City were to be named as an insurer the lawsuit would pass to the association. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Olson clarified it will not be difficult to design the location of the sign so <br />the site line of traffic exiting, the subdivision is not obstructed. The concern he is raising is in <br />regards to someone that may be coming home at night that runs into the median that was allowed <br />by City Council, and the median is an obstruction in the right-of-way. He advised this would be <br />a different situation from mailboxes and street lights, which are not restricted in City Code, as <br />the median is restricted. <br /> <br />. <br />Mr. Peterson indicated Blaine has the same ordinance as Ramsey and granted a variance for <br />similar signs. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee / February 20,2007 <br />Page 4 of 11 <br />