PC 01-05-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5,2005 4 e Mr. Clark requested Item 5C be held before Item 5B as there was a representative in the audience for that item. ! C. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON BALL FIELD SIGNAGE Mr. Clark stated as discussed at the December Planning Commission meeting, Mounds View School District had inquired about using temporary banner signs that could be tied to the fences around the MVHS footballltrack stadium. He indicated the direction of the Planning Commission was to review what other communities had done to address similar requests and provide potential code language. He stated staff had contacted several metro cltJes and received responses from approximately six of these communities. Of the communities surveyed there were a range of responses to this matter. Two of the communities indicated that ball field signage was not allowed, and any change would require an amendment to the ordinance. He noted of those two communities, Shoreview did not allow athletic field fence panel signage however, they did allow one sponsor panel not to exceed 12 square feet to be attached to the bottom of a scoreboard. Two other communities responded ,that they did not have specific language to address ball field signage. Blaine was one of these communities; they indicated that the school districts regulated signage at school district sports fields; however signage at private fields would require a Conditional Use Permit. Roseville also indicated that they did not have any specific regulations for ball field e signage, but that a request for ball field signage would require the approval of the City Council. Finally, New Brighton did not have any specific language for ball field signage; however this was something that could be done through a Comprehensive Sign Plan. The Comprehensive Sign Plan was established through a process like a CUP/SUP/PUD and was prescriptive to the particular development what the sign standards should be for that development. This method may require other changes to the Zoning Code to enable the creation of Comprehensive Sign Plans. Unfortunately, due to just receiving an example of the Comprehensive Sign Plan the last week in December there was not time to create language in time for the January meeting. He noted staffs recommendation would be to bring this item back with more material to the February meeting as a continued discussion item. However, if the Planning Commission determines that one of the versions in their packet is the preferred method, then staff would schedule a public hearing for the February meeting and bring back the preferred language as amended. Nick Temali, Mounds View School District, asked if the Commission~rs had any questions. Chair Sand noted the original inquiry was that they wanted to have a plastic coated banner affixed to the outfield fence or perimeter fence. Mr. Temali stated they had spoken with a sign company to discuss different alternatives and one concern was wind e flow. He stated they would not be looking at a metal or wood sign. i Chair Sand asked if there was any current signage on the score board. Mr. Temali replied he was not sure, but he would check into this.