CC PACKET 06092009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

32 - memorandum of clarification with regard to the: Proposed Ordinance. Amendment t Anthot&Baseball AssodatizralISD4282 i. introduction, This moritorandum is to address various concerns voiccd at the April 21, 2009 St. Anthony Planning Commission meeting by members of thce Commission and Residents. This memorandum will clarify each provision of the proposed amendment and discuss the St. Anthgriy Baseball Association's position,411 coordination with ISJI #282. IL Ordinance, Text. Subject to the approval of the City Council, and as a conditional use, an educational institution maypostsigns displaying commercial, educational orphilanthropic messages on walls orfences located around sports fields, subject to the following minimum conditions., 1. Signs mustface inward, toward the playingfeld; 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. istrict;4. Individual signs cannot exceed 60 squarefeet in surface area; 5. Aggregate sign area cannot exceed 15% of the fence or wall area surrounding the field (or a cumulative o(500 square foot totalwhichever is less. • and 6. Signs must be of a temporary nature (Signs ma by e disiolaved for no to six months per calendar year), (Underlined text added by voice amendment at 412112009 meeting). I1h Analysis a. SuGiect to the approval of the city council, and as a conditionaluse... 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 whore the concepti 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. SARA 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 al5lrears that the proper a 1d annrouriatg scope is not to discuss the specifies of the t11an; .,arbor, whether the proposed ordinance amendment is apli oxil ate to enable such a than to be brou rht forth.