Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />July 7, 1999 <br />Page 25 <br />Chair Peterson stated that PF and CRP designations indicate the purpose of the signage as they relate <br />to the specific use of the property and allow no signage that relates to anything else. He stated that <br />he thought this would apply to the City parks and other City owned properties. Heggested that <br />language be added to indicate this purpose for the signs. <br />Commissioner Miller noted the requirement for PF and CRPASignati.:...::t total square feet, <br />and that the current signage at City Hall already exceeds rmount. 'ye.ted clarificati <br />Jopke referred to Section 1008.01 Subdivision 6 which allcrs addition:: ee-desta,. pe <br />signs, which would cover the additional amount of signag He suggested that t':> ': was <br />to attempt to keep the regulation of signs simple and col* Otertain areas, b ey could <br />consider different signage regulations for other situations` ity Hall and City parks. <br />Commissioner Miller stated that staff had indicated tlt <br />commercial or industrial zoned properties, and asked 1.w <br />that this was an issue that the billboard compa°• <br />philosophy of the City was that they woulclr <br />appropriate, and that the billboard companiestfould has; <br />; <br />� <br />that the billboard companies would hre to obtin <br />requirements, and that there was no grantee t}t>"this coup <br />Council Member Stigney noted <br />message changed as long as <br />Paul had prr <br />affect t <br />had ruled t' <br />d an ordin... <br />Jopke <br />could no <br />em 9, whi <br />e not ex <br />liminate <br />,staff coi <br />only grant a permit in <br />['poposal. Jopke stated <br />s. He stated that the <br />`reflect what they feel is <br />those standards. He added <br />ry permits to meet the state <br />e "done. <br />ndicatestat billboards can be maintained and the <br />hated that he had heard that the city of St. <br />Sat s within five years, and asked how this might <br />esearch the matter, adding that a recent court case <br />le uses in that manner. <br />Commissioners'"J, in ligl4t'le present proposal, how the billboard was allowed at the <br />Rent -All b 4i s3 y :ed that this billboard had been in place for some time, and he was <br />��;t:..»::»:; Er: t. .0 � . L , off.. , <br />uncerta; f the ordina Ct gments at the time it was constructed. He stated that staff had a <br />copy The lease and coup <br />wer `- quired to come be <br />e not permitted at <br />tus of all existi <br />eh the matter. Commissioner Braathen asked ifbillboard projects <br />teIe Planning Commission, prior to construction. Jopke stated no, that <br />s point in time. He stated that staff could review the matter to determine <br />A;billboards in the City. <br />igney noted Item 4, which indicated the spacing of billboards to be at 1500 feet <br />roadway. He asked if this meant that there could be one billboard immediately across <br />a roaway from another billboard. Jopke stated that this was a possibility. Chair Peterson asked if <br />the language could be amended to indicate that both sides of the roadway would be taken into <br />consideration. Commissioner Johnson suggested that the language could indicate "on either side of <br />the roadway" and "1500 feet from any other sign." <br />• <br />