CC PACKET 05262009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

43 Memorandum of clarification with regard to the Proposed Ordinance Amendment St. Anthony Baseball Association II.SD #282 Introduction. This memorandum is to address various concerns voiced at the April 21, 2009 St. Anthony Planning Commission meeting by members of the Commission and Residents. This memorandum will clarify each provision of the proposed amendment and discuss the St. Anthony Baseball Association's position, in coordination with ISD #282. Il. Ordinance Text Subject to the approval of the City Council, and as a conditional use, an educational institution may post signs displaying commercial, educational or philanthropic messages on walls or fences located around sports fields, subject to the following minimum conditions: 1. Signs must face inward, toward the playing field; 2. Signs shall not permitted to flash or contain any animation; 3. Signs may not be erected within 250,feet of a residential district; 4. Individual signs cannot exceed 60 square feet in surface area; 5. Aggregate sign area cannot exceed 15% of the fence or wall area surrounding the field (or a cumulative of 500 square foot total whichever is less); and 6. Signs must be of'a temporary nature (Signs may be displayed for up to six months per calendar year). (Underlined text added by voice amendment at 412112009 meeting). III. Analysis a. Subject to the approval of the city council, and as a conditional use... This provision provides that any plan for use of the signs contemplated in this process would be as a Conditional Use. The Conditional Use process permits the City and the Public the opportunity to take particular scrutiny as to any specific sign usage. Because of the ability to examine any particular plan for sign usage under this process, it is generally acceptable to allow a significant range of options and flexibility under the ordinance and allow for refinement through the conditional use permit process. Many cities use the conditional use permit process to enable situations similar to this where the concept itself is generally acceptable but allows the City to maintain control over the practice. As such, the discussion and allegations that seemed to dominate the April 21, 2009 meeting may have been beyond the scope of the proposed ordinance. SABA cannot be expected to have a detailed plan for proposal at this stage, since, as discussed at the March 17, 2009 meeting, without this ordinance amendment, there appears to be no proper avenue for even bringing such a plan before this body. Therefore, it appears that the proper and appropriate scope is not to discuss the specifics of the plan; rather, whether the proposed ordinance amendment is appropriate to enable such a plan to be brought fort .