PL PACKET 09162003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 19, 2003 Page 9 1 a representative meet with them and provide a tour through the area. He suggested coordinating 2 the tour through Ms. Hall. 3 4 Chair Melsha suggested that if someone wants a more detailed tour to contact Ms. Hall to 5 coordinate a schedule. Ms. Hall asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop. 6 Chair Melsha stated that a workshop was not necessary due to Mr. Shardlow's presence at the 7 meeting. 8 9 Peter Beck, Apache Medical Building, expressed his support of the project noting that he has 10 been following the process closely. He expressed concerns regarding the potential impact the 11 project could have on the medical building. He stated that at one point in the planning process 12 they were a part of the project adding that they are no longer included in the project. He 13 explained that their major concern is the curving of the road as the plan shows that the easement 14 would be closed and asked for clarification. He stated that they plan now to do some work to 15 make the building a mixed use building. They plan to come forward with recommendations for 16 upgrading the medical building so that the building conforms and fits with the design of the area. 17 Mr. Pratt stated that access of the easement would be the same as what exists now. 18 19 Mr. Beck stated that he is very comfortable and pleased with the plan they reviewed this 20 evening. He asked if they could purchase or have access to the Design Framework Manual so 21 that as they move forward they can work with the designs and materials that would allow them 22 to be compatible. 23 24 9.2 Discuss Opinion Signs 25 26 Susan Hall stated that earlier this year the topic of opinion signs came up for discussion. She 27 referenced a letter from City Attorney Jerry Gilligan and provided a copy for the Commission to 28 review. She explained that City Attorney Gilligan reiterated that while the City can regulate 29 opinion signs by providing restrictions on the size, location, number of signs, the City cannot 30 totally prohibit opinion signs or regulate the message. She further explained that Mr. Gilligan 31 also stated that the City could possibly ban offensive content, such as profanity, from opinion 32 signs but that is as far as the City should go. She stated that any limitations beyond the items 33 outlined would be considered an infringement on freedom of speech rights. She stated that 34 Mr. Gilligan agreed that it would make sense to address the opinion sign issue and consider an 35 amendment to the City's sign ordinance, as opinion signs are not explicitly defined. She stated 36 that City Staff reviewed the New Brighton ordinance and found that they do not specifically 37 address opinion signs in residential areas. She explained that New Brighton staff said that it has 38 been City policy to treat opinion signs the same as election signs and reviewed with the 39 Commission. She mentioned that staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss 40 the appropriate zoning parameters for opinion signs and address the language in the sign 41 ordinance pertaining to political signs and touch base with City Council with a recommendation. 42 43 Chair Melsha noted that the City of New Brighton has a commercial and political sign definition 44 but nothing that addresses opinion signs. He suggested tweaking the definitions to include 45 opinion signs in St. Anthony's sign ordinance. 46