04-18-2006 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Public Hearings: ZA2006-006 Zoning Code Amendment Related to Directional Signage for Institutional Uses The proposed amendment deals specifically with off-site directional signage for institutional uses. The current language prohibits such signs, however at least one has existed in the City for years. Knowing this, other institutional uses have inquired about erecting such signs. Realizing that these signs currently exist in the City and the code prohibits them, staff found it appropriate to draft an amendment to the Sign Ordinance whereby a permit process is established and conditions are clearly defined. The proposed language would identify the placement of such signs, limit the size and height, and allow for a discretionary review by the City Engineer. Baker inquired why the City is limiting the number of signs to two. Gundlach replied that there was a concern that too many signs would create clutter. Baker stated that a church may want signs on the both sides of the street, which would use all of the allotted signage. Gundlach reported that she has already heard concern from the church about that situation. Baker also inquired to the seven foot setback, which would put the signs on the other side of the sidewalk in many places. Gundlach replied that the other provisions through out the sign code all state a seven foot setback and she was trying to be consistent within the code. O’Keefe stated that he had questions regarding the size, the height, and the location of the signs. He added that any signs along the highway would have to follow the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises. The manual is also very specific on sign colors for different types of institutions, heights, and widths. The counties and the Twin Cities rely on the manual for guidance on their local signage and he wants to make sure that we would not be deviating from what is common through out the state. Gundlach replied that she had briefly looked at the manual, which is very detailed. O’Keefe stated that he would more comfortable if he knew how other cities referred back to the manual. Fernelius replied that the standards should be referenced and incorporated into the ordinance. He added that currently the City code does not allow these signs and the county prohibits them, however if one should appear in a right of way they would not remove it. The City is aware of two signs, each a different design, that are in the county right of way and there maybe other signs that the City is not aware of. Mann voiced concern about the allotted size of the sign with such a large set back would not be visible. Howard inquired if there has been any thought about a color scheme for the signs, so that there is a uniformity to the signs. Gundlach replied that was a concern of staff, thus they added the requirement for the approval by the City Engineer. Fulton added that the City Engineer would be able to use the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devises to reference from and achieve the uniformity that the Commission is looking for. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\04-18-2006 MINUTES.doc