PCP 07-12-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2006 5 would be to ehange. He noted the City was unique and signs were a big issue in the City . with residential interest and he was concerned if they went to a Sign Code, there would be no publie hearing involved. He indicated he preferred this be maintained as a Sign Ordinance and not a Sign Code. Mr. Lehnhoff slated the City Attorney had recommended the City switch to a Sign Code, which would becomc part of the official City Codc. Ms. Barton stated with a Sign Code, it wou Id allow staIT to make minor adjustments to the Code without have to bring it to a public hearing, though it would still require City Council approval. She noted any major content changes to the Sign Code staff would foresee putting together a task force, which would involve publie participation. Chair Sand asked what othcr cities had done. Mr. Lchnhoff responded other citics used both Sign Ordinances and Sign Codes and there did not appear to be a preference. He noted any change to the Sign Code would require City Council approvaL Commissioner McClung stated he did not mind keeping this as a Sign Ordinance because he did not believe it was a burden on the Commission or City staff. Mr. Lehnhoff stated the only part that would not come baek to the Planning Commission under this proposal was an actual textual change to the Sign Code. The Planning Commission would still review signs for proposed developments and any signs that cxcceded or deviated from the Sign Code. . Commissioner McClung stated he saw this as a zoning issue and those wcrc issues that might get some residential interest where thcy might want to comment. Commissioner Zimmcrman noted on Pagc 3, Subd. 3, the word perpcndicularly should be checkcd for grammatical use. Commissioner Larson asked staff look at this subdivision again with respect to signage on berms. He stated with Subd. 28, he had a coneem about signage on roofs being above the roofline. Chair Sand expressed concern with the wording on Page 9, under 1400.8 Rcview Process, "All permits not reviewed within sixty (60) days shall be deemcd approved.". He requested staff clarify the wording under that provision. He indicated if staff had 75 days to inform the applicant of approval or disapproval, this could cause confusion. He indicated under 1400.9 Appeal Process should also be clarified with respect to the deadlines. Commissioner Modesette asked staff to look at Page 10, 1400.1] V iola!ions provision with respect to the fines and thc wording "each day". Chair Sand inquired if the City had jurisdiction with signs in the County right-of-way. Mr. Lehnhoffresponded that was something staff would look into, . Commissioncr Modesette statcd on Page 13, Subd. 9, it would be her prefcrence to have roll-out portable signs as a tcmporary sign and not a prohibited sIgn. Mr. Lehnhoff responded he would look at how to change this to a temporary sign,