PL PACKET 12152020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 Page 4 of the applicant’s grass area. As a result, the previous sign was removed and the new sign will 1 be moved farther away from the roadway. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann asked if there would be an issue with the lighting. Mr. Grittman 4 explained there are some requirements in the Code which need to meet as with any other 5 signage. Commissioner Neumann stated she was asking if the applicant was meeting the 6 Code. Mr. Grittman stated that was correct. 7 8 Commissioner Rude stated there was talk about some brightness or illumes leaving the 9 property. He asked if the City does not have anything in place that controls the brightness of 10 signs right now. Mr. Grittman stated he would have to look at the specific section of the Code 11 to confirm that. Commissioner Rude explained his concern, especially with signs near the 12 road or near residential areas, has been with illumes leaving the property. He stated he was 13 surprised the City has not adopted anything yet regarding this and wondered if the 14 Commission could put something in place on this sign. Commissioner Rude explained doing 15 that would make this sign compliant with what the City is working to accomplish. 16 17 Commissioner Neumann stated she liked that. Commissioner Rude stated most communities 18 have that regulation and he thought St. Anthony Village should have that too. Mr. Grittman 19 noted he would check into this a little further and bring it back to the Commission as a 20 discussion item at the next meeting. 21 22 Commissioner Rude asked if the motion should be amended to include this as a condition of 23 the recommendation going forward to the City Council. Mr. Grittman stated he did find a 24 reference in City Code regarding this and there is a brightness requirement. He referenced the 25 Code as 155.29, Section O, and read the requirement to the Commission. 26 27 Commissioner Erickson asked Mr. O’Brien for clarification on the setback of the sign. Mr. 28 O’Brien explained he has not met with the contractor but if the City has a requirement for this, 29 he will make sure it is met. He explained the sign is going to be moved closer to the building. 30 31 Mr. Grittman explained he talked to the sign contractor who did not have a specific proposed 32 dimension but the photograph of the area showed it is expected to be approximately twenty-33 five feet, based on his measurements from what was submitted but this needed to be 34 confirmed. 35 36