PCP 01-06-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~ ~HlLLS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 5, 2005 PC Agenda Item s.e TO: Planning Commission FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner SUBJECT: Athletic Field Signage Update Background As discussed at the December Planning Cotmnission meeting, Mounds View School . District has inquired about using temporary baIl11er signs that could be tied to the fences around the MVHS football/track stadium. The direction of the Planning Commission was to review what other communities have done to address similar requests and provide potential code language. Staff contacted several metro cities 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. (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 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 is something that could be done through a Comprehensive Sign Plan. . The Comprehensive Sign Plan is established through a process like a CUP/SUP/PUD and is 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