Augustana Lutheran’s proposed sign on sleepy Prairie Avenue.
Good News Church’s proposed sign on a very busy 4-lane, 26th Street.
I don’t need to tell you about the hypocrisy and irony of city government, it’s the reason I blog. But sometimes things stick out like a sore thumb.
Take for instance the city council’s reconsideration of the sign Augustana Lutheran is proposing (Item #21). The Planning Commission voted it down 7-0, the Planning Department also recommended denial, even though only a couple of people in the neighborhood were against it due to ‘distraction and lighting’ issues, even though the church has vowed to not make the sign animated (static changing messages) and it would shut off at 10Â PM at night.
But only a month later, look at the Planning Commission’s agenda (Item #6). A proposed digital sign by a church in a residential area on a very busy street. The Planning Commission recommends approval. While I don’t disagree with them, why is this sign OK by a church, in a residential area on a very busy street, but not the very subtle, historical looking, Augustana sign in a residential area?
While I am all for historical neighborhoods trying to retain historical aspects, I also look at two factors; Does the sign at Augustana take away anything from the historical neighborhood or distract from it? Not at all.
Does the sign harm the traffic flow or the historical nature of the traffic flow? Not even close. While Prairie Avenue is mildly busy, I don’t see anyone distracted by a static sign that gets shut off at 10 PM.
Like the code enforcement office, the planning department seems to make decisions based on the influence of certain people with fat wallets.
Hopefully the city council sends the planning department packing and approves the Augustana AND the Good News sign.
They’re both churches. Apparently, the planning commission discriminates against Lutherans. The city is prejudice toward LBGT, veterans, and hats. Lutherans and minorities are next. Perhaps policy has become a master religion and race. Nordic tennis players and swim teams, sounds like 1940’s Germany.
Interesting. A quick scan of the original documents show that the planning staff’s approach has basically been to leave it up to the neighbors to decide via their input.
Will that result in conflicting outcomes to otherwise similarly situated requests? Of course. But let’s be real here. You’ve advocated for this kind of “neighborhood rules” approach to land use and zoning for years. It would seem that with Augustana’s sign, some neighbors complained and the planning commission denied it.
Have you finally had a change of heart? Or is this another example of you being inconsistent simply so that you can take the side opposite the Planning Commission and/or the City Council?
Transparency is always best in land use. Establish clear rules and apply them consistently, regardless of what the neighbors say. That way, everyone knows up front what they’re getting into.
HG- You are correct. If 6-20 people showed up at the planning commission to oppose this, I may agree it’s not right for the neighborhood. Two people showed up. That’s it. So we are going to vote down a sign that has the approval of the congregation, a sign that is on THERE property because a whopping two people showed up against it. Not cutting it for me.
BTW, the sign passed the city council tonight 8-0. Only 2 citizens showed up to oppose it due to historic reasons. But since the sign isn’t attached to the building they don’t have to follow those rules.
A church can’t walk through the planning commission peeling off hundreds like a private developer can. They want to advertise that they offer a free weekly meal for the working poor. This church is a gem in a community where there’s demise. It’s a crowd of humble people who showed up favoring the sign. People who don’t normally speak up. I’m agnostic but formally Lutheran. I’ll visit this church on Sunday. There’s values I’d like to rediscover and perhaps regain some from them.
I’m glad to hear it passed. Thanks for the update.
As I said earlier (and in previous land use discussions), I’m all for consistency. Whether a church can or can’t put up a certain type of sign should be contingent only upon whether their zoning allows it, and not the number of squeaky wheels they happen to have as neighbors.