CC PACKET 07222014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 8, 2014 Page 2 1 A. Ordinance 2014-02; an Ordinance Amending Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign 2 Code, Section 155.22 of the Zoning Code of the City of St. Anthony Village Pertaining to 3 the Prohibited Signs (Church of St. Charles Borromeo, 2739 Stinson Boulevard). Kelsey 4 Johnson, City Planner, presenting. 6 City Planner Johnson presented the applicant's request to install a double -sided electronic 7 message sign in front of the Catholic School and recited Chapter 155.22 of the Sign Code. She 8 discussed the City Council's findings, purpose and intent of the Sign Code, stating that the City 9 Council found that exterior signs have a substantial impact on the quality of the environment 10 throughout the City, provide an important medium to convey messages, can create traffic hazards 11 and aesthetic concerns thereby threatening the public health, safety, and welfare, the codes and 12 ordinances establish standards to permit reasonable and equitable opportunities for businesses to 13 identify themselves through signage, the regulation of signs is an effort to provide adequate 14 means for expression and to promote the economic viability of businesses in the community, to 15 preserve and promote civic beauty and protect the City from a proliferation of signage that might 16 adversely impact and threaten the public health, safety, and welfare of the community, and to 17 preserve and protect the value of land, buildings, and landscapes. She advised that the purpose 18 and intent of the Sign Code is not to regulate the message on any sign, rather the purpose is to 19 regulate the number, location, size, illumination, and other physical characteristics of signs in 20 order to promote the public health, safety, and welfare; in addition, the purpose is to maintain 21 and improve the aesthetic environment by preventing visual clutter harmful to the appearance of 22 the community, improve the visual appearance of the City while providing for effective means of 23 communication consistent with Constitutional guarantees and the City's goal of public safety, as 24 well as to provide fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations. She stated the effect 25 of the Sign Code is to allow institutions and commercial entities to erect, display, or maintain 26 signs in conformance with City Code by allowing a wide variety of sign types in commercial 27 zones and more limited signs in other zoning districts, as well as to allow small, unobtrusive 28 signs in all zoning districts such as directional signs or signage indicating the entrance into a 29 building. She stated the City prohibits signs whose physical characteristics negatively affect the 30 environment and where the communication can be accomplished with less impact. She stated 31 the applicant has requested a text amendment to allow electronic message signs within the RI 32 District located on property owned by the City or associated with a school serving grades Pre -K 33 through Grade 12 and noted the City currently has an electronic message sign at City Hall as 34 well as at Wilshire Park Elementary and the high school, adding that requests for text 35 amendments have been received in the past and historically been denied by the City Council. 36 37 Councilmember Roth asked how the Sign Code addresses Powerball lottery signage. He also 38 asked about the TCF monument sign. 39 40 City Planner Johnson replied that all Powerball lottery signage is interior window signage and is 41 permitted without issuance of a permit and these signs are not regulated as it relates to electronic 42 message signs. She stated that the TCF monument sign is considered a legal nonconforming sign 43 and is not permitted under the current code but has been in place for a number of years and the 44 sign cannot be modified in any way. She explained the Planning Commission deliberated about 45 whether an electronic message sign was appropriate given the character of the neighborhood as 46 well as separating between the school versus the church and whether the messages would be 47 shared between the two and how that could be regulated, and pointed out that the City does not 48 regulate the message but regulates the physical space associated with the signage. She stated the