2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION --- JANUARY 5, 2005 4 . Mr. Clark requcsted Item 5C be held beforc Item 5B as there was a representative in the audicnce f()r 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 football/track stadium. He indicated the direction of the Planning Commission was to rcvicw what other communities had done to address similar requests and provide potential code languagc. He stated staff had contacted several metro cities and rcceived responses from approximately six of these communities. Of the communities surveycd 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 rcquire an amendmcnt to the ordinance. He noted of those two communities, Shorcview did not allow athletic field fence panel signage howevcr, 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 thcy did not have specific language to address ball field signage. Blaine was onc of thcse communities; they indicated that the school districts regulated signage at school district sports fields; howevcr signage at private fields would require a Conditional Use Pennit. Roseville also indicated that they did not havc any specific regulations for ball field . signagc, but that a requcst f()r ball field signage would require thc approval of the City Council. Finally, New Brighton did not havc any specific languagc for ball field signage; however this was something that could be dOl~e through a Comprehensive Sign Plan. The Comprchcnsive Sign Plan was cstablished thl"ough a process like a CUP/SUP/PUD and was prescriptive to the particular dcvelopment what the sign standards should be for that development. This method may requirc other changes to the Zoning Code to cnable the crcation of Comprehcnsivc Sign Plans. Unf()rtunatc1y, duc to just recciving an example of the Comprehensive Sign Plan the last week in Decembcr there was not time to create languagc in timc 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 detcmlincs that one of the versions in thcir packet is the prcferred mcthod, then staff would schedule a public hearing f()r the February meeting and bring back the preferred language as amended. Nick Tcmali, Mounds View School District, askcd if the Commissioners had any questions. Chair Sand notcd the original inquiry was that they wanted to have a plastic coated banner atlixcd to the outfield fence or perimeter fence. Mr. T cmali statcd they had spoken with a sign company to discuss different alternatives and one concern was wind . flow. He stated they would not be looking at a metal or wood sign. Chair Sand askcd if there was any current signage on the score board. Mr. Tcmali replied he was not sure, but he would check into this.