CC 09-08-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- ~ Minutes of Regular Council Meeting September 8, 1980 Crepeau noted that the Ordinance was reviewed in detail and amendments offered at the August 18th Council meeting and the Ordinance was Intro- duced by Title (first reading) on August 25th. Clerk Administrator McNiesh verified that the Motice of Hearing was published in the New Brighton Bulletin snd mailed to Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Eugene Engelbert and Marjorie Erickson-Peterson on Sept. 4, 1980. Planner Orlyn Miller briefly explained the Ordinance; explained that it contains more definitions and provides for better control of size and number of aigns, creates a new County Road E district with relaxed setbacks and creates a billboard district; noted that the proposed ~ ordinance would allow area identification signs. Miller noted that Attorney Lynden has been asked to comment on the advisability of not permitting billboards and political signs. Lynden referred to his letter of 9-9-80 regarding Proposed Sign Ordinance which he reviewed. Lynden said that it is his opinion that an absolute prohibition of political signs would consititute a direct abridgement of freedom of expression; said he did not see the need for published or written notices to be served upon owners of properties within 350 feet of the parcel upon which an offending sign is located; suggested a written notice served upon or mailed by certified mail to the owner of the sign would be sufficient. In discussion of billboards, Lynden said the smortization provisions of the existing ordinance (No. 76) would probably be upheld aa reason- able; noted that unless there are compelling reasons to prohibit bill- boarda, it seems that establishing a strip zone (as proposed) in which billboards are permissable would seem to be a better and more conservative approach. Clerk Administrator McNiesh reported that she has not received any written questions or comments relative to the proposed ordinance. Comments from the Floor Dr. Wally Anderson, Arden Plaza Office Center, said he feels the pro- posed ordinance is superior to Ordinance 76; explained that his concern is that the directory sign has been eliminated at Arden Plaza and replaced by the Twin City Federal sign; understood that the directory sign would be re-Iocated; said he feels the tenants in the office center need some public exposure; asked if the proposed ordinance will permit a directory sign for the Arden Plaza office center. In discussion, it was noted that Arden Plaza is private property; city cannot require a sign; Arden Plaza sign criteria has been approved and will not be changed by the new ordinance. Arden Plaza is under a Special Use Permit, so if signage is to be changed, an amended Special Use Permit will be required, It was noted that it was Council's und~rstanding that the diaplaced directory sign would be relocated near the office building entrance. Jeanne Winiecki, Sign Committee member, referred to the p posed Sign ~ Ordinance modifications; suggested the following revision, ., '3 15c flag poles height be as required by zoning ardin_ace. permit harea identification signsh as proposed i0 iraft ordinance of Miller reported that ~aegele is not represented at tonight's meeting bacause representative was recently released from the hospItal; noted that the current sign ordinance (No. 76) prohibits billboards; proposed ordinance creates a hblllboard districth. After determining there were no further questions or comm. ts from the floor, the hearing was losed at 9:01 p.m.