My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-13-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
06-24-13-R
>
06-24-13-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/24/2013 11:56:42 AM
Creation date
6/24/2013 11:54:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
06-24-13 Regular City Council Packet
General - Type
06-24-13 Regular City Council Packet
Category
06-24-13 Regular City Council Packet
Date
6/24/2013
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
258
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MAY 13, 201311 <br /> <br />Lisa Moe <br />, StuartCo, indicated there will not be four-bedroom units within eStreet Flats. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> recalled that the property will be advertised through technological <br />means and is surprised that the signs are now being requested. She stated she could support one <br />banner sign, but does not feel two are necessary. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> agreed stating he could only support one sign given the size <br />requested. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes <br /> stated she does not object to the two signs at their proposed size. It is <br />her opinion that the two signs are not abusing the sign ordinance and the signs complement the <br />building nicely. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> indicated that the Council wants this development to be successful. He stated he <br />has concerns with the proposed signs but understands that they will be in place on a temporary <br />basis. <br /> <br />Councilmember Werner <br />supports the two temporary signs. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden <br /> explained that she too wants the project to be successful, but only <br />supports one sign based on the proposed size. She is frustrated that the signs are being requested <br />after the Council was told the development would be advertised by other means. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> does not support the sign along Lexington Avenue. He agrees with <br />the sign placement along County Road E. He indicated he could support two signs at this location <br />so long as they do not exceed 216 square feet in size total. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a <br />motion to approve Planning Case 13-005 for a Sign Standard Adjustment at <br />1195 County Road E, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as <br />amended by the four conditions in the May 13, 2013 report to the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung <br /> requested an amendment reducing the approved signage to up to two <br />signs not to exceed 216 square feet total. <br /> <br />Councilmember HoldenCouncilmember Holmes <br /> and accepted this friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant <br /> stated that he does not support the adjustment as he wants to be assured the signs <br />are readable from both Lexington Avenue and County Road E. It is his opinion the signs have to <br />be readable in order to be an effective marketing tool. <br /> <br />AMENDMENT: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Holden <br />seconded a motion to amend the request reducing the approved <br />signage to up to two signs not to exceed 216 feet total. The amendment <br />failed (2-3) (Holmes, Werner, and Mayor Grant opposed). <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.