CCP 03-09-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 3-4-92 Page 3 . CASE #92-04 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly reviewed the infonnation received from the survey he conducted with other communities; indicates a wide range of regulations. He advised that many of the ordinances subnitted from other communities are over a decade old and these communities are also in the process reviewing these regulations. Bergly connnented that the city of Shoreview is also in the process of reviewing their entire Zoning Ordinance and particularly at "Changeable Copy signs"; noted he has not yet received a copy of the proposed ordinance. Counciln1ernber Malone indicated he has seen a copy of the proposed Shoreview Ordinance and the proposal bans all commercial reader boards, excluding public infonnation and t:i1ne/terrperature signs. The Planner reviewed the infonnation received from the former Arden Hills Sign Ordinance Committee; Winiecki advised that the Committee did not intend to permit electronically operated signs, except time/terrperature, and that the Ordinance referred to "manually operated" changeable signs would be permitted. He advised this conclusion is reached by reference to another section which outlines that the sign lighting must be constant, not moveable. Member winiecki reported the only type of electronic signs operating at the time the ordinance was drafted were the time/terrperature signs. She stated the intent was to clearly prohibit any type of moving or flashing signage; noted that the t:i1ne/terrperature signs were proposed to be prohibited, however, a local bank convinced the Commission that the t:i1ne/temperature was part of their logo. . Commission questioned if signs were reviewed during the Zoning Code subcommittee meetings. Member Piotrowski advised the Sign Ordinance is not included in the Zoning Code and was not reviewed by the subcormnittee. Counciln1ernber Malone explained it was his understanding this matter would be placed on the Planning agenda as an application for a Special Use Permit for the sign. He briefly outlined the problems the City has been experiencing relating to the sign located at the Zeos site and reviewed discussions with Zeos representatives. Planner Bergly reported that Zeos has agreed to suJ::rnit an application for a Special Use Permit, however, the carrpany missed the suJ::rnission deadline for the March meeting. He suggested the Commission should consider whether or not the SUP procedures would be appropriate in this case or if an amendment to the Ordinance would be considered. There was discussion relating to the need for defining what is considered a changeable copy sign and if permitted, the following issues should be addressed: what tiIne interval would be appropriate for the sign to change, what level of illumination would be appropriate, size of the reader board in relation to the rosiness sign, and what would be an acceptable distance between such signs to eliminate the "Las Vegas" type of atmosphere in a rosiness district. . Chair Probst indicated that a definition of such signs will be ~ssary in the Ordinance, since technology changes so quickly and it is not possible to anticipate what innovations in signage will come in the future.