11-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ayes – 9 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Planner Ericson drafted and presented to the Commission a preliminary revision to the sign code with the only changes of substance being the addition of a “purpose” section and the reorganization of the allowable signage by zoning district into a table. Planner Ericson obtained and presented to the Commission a model sign ordinance from a group called United States Sign Council Foundation, a charitable, nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to funding sign-related research and educational activities of benefit to the growth of the sign industry. Mr. Ericson indicated he had also requested a model sign ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities but was told the League of Minnesota Cities did not have a model sign ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities does have several cities’ ordinances on file and would be happy to forward some examples to him. Planner Ericson drafted a proposed schedule for the review of the major components of the sign code to help expedite the process. The timeline was presented to the Commission and Planner Ericson asked for input as to changes or revisions to the timeline. Planner Ericson reviewed each area of the code he felt needed updating, changing, or clarifying, referring first to the new “Purpose” section. He indicated that each of the definitions would need to be carefully considered for possible changes. He pointed out that on Page 4 in Section 1008.03, Subd. 2, referring to “Exceptions” would need to be revised to be clearer. He recommended that the phrase “in its direction” in Section 1008.04 be changed to read “at its discretion” for purpose of clarity. He referred to Section 1008.05, Subd. 2 concerning permit issuance, indicating that the part dealing with “unusual signs or signs needing a special permit need to be referred to Council for approval” should be rewritten for clarity. He advised that some of the language in Section 1008.06, addressing the provisions for obtaining a license to install signs, could possibly be removed from the code. Planner Ericson continued by pointing out that Subd. 1f of Section 1008.08 requiring signs to be installed with identifying numbers may not be applicable and as such, could either be eliminated or changed. He stated that in his opinion, subpart 1of Subd. 1i of Section 1008.08 subpart 1 is one of the most confusing sections of the sign code. Planner Ericson indicated because of the confusing nature, he redrafted the section and presented his new version to the Commission for their review. Planner Ericson indicated that the table on Page 8 identifying signage by zoning district was added as a result of the suggestions made by the Commission at its last meeting. The last issue addressed by Planner Ericson concerned the variance language, and whether it is necessary to repeat the criteria in the sign code. The section could simply refer to Chapter 1125. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how Section 1008.08 would apply to home-based businesses.