07-07-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 25 Chair Peterson stated that PF and CRP designations indicate the purpose of the signage as they relate to the specific use of the property and allow no signage that relates to anything else. He stated that he thought this would apply to the City parks and other City owned properties. He suggested that language be added to indicate this purpose for the signs. Commissioner Miller noted the requirement for PF and CRP designations of 100 total square feet, and that the current signage at City Hall already exceeds that amount. She requested clarification. Jopke referred to Section 1008.01, Subdivision 6, which allows additional free- standing pedestal type signs, which would cover the additional amount of signage. He suggested that the initial effort was to attempt to keep the regulation of signs simple and consistent in certain areas, but that they could consider different signage regulations for other situations, such as City Hall and City parks. Commissioner Miller stated that staff had indicated that the state would only grant a permit in commercial or industrial zoned properties, and asked how this affected the proposal. Jopke stated that this was an issue that the billboard companies would need to address. He stated that the philosophy of the City was that they would amend the ordinances to reflect what they feel is appropriate, and that the billboard companies would have to comply with those standards. He added • that the billboard companies would have to obtain the necessary permits to meet the state requirements, and that there was no guarantee that this could be done. Council Member Stigney noted Item 9, which indicates that billboards can be maintained and the message changed as long as they are not expanded. He stated that he had heard that the city of St. Paul had proposed an ordinance to eliminate all billboards within five years, and asked how this might affect the proposal. Jopke stated that staff could research the matter, adding that a recent court case had ruled that cities could not amortize uses in that manner. Commissioner Miller asked, in light of the present proposal, how the billboard was allowed at the Rent-All building. Jopke stated that this billboard had been in place for some time, and he was uncertain of the ordinance requirements at the time it was constructed. He stated that staff had a copy of the lease and could research the matter. Commissioner Braathen asked if billboard projects were required to come before the Planning Commission, prior to construction. Jopke stated no, that they are not permitted at this point in time. He stated that staff could review the matter to determine the status of all existing billboards in the City. Council Member Stigney noted Item 4, which indicated the spacing of billboards to be at 1500 feet along the same roadway. He asked if this meant that there could be one billboard immediately across a roadway from another billboard. Jopke stated that this was a possibility. Chair Peterson asked if the language could be amended to indicate that both sides of the roadway would be taken into consideration. Commissioner Johnson suggested that the language could indicate "on either side of the roadway" and "1500 feet from any other sign."