My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-13-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
06-24-13-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2013 12:51:57 PM
Creation date
8/27/2013 12:51:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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—JUNE 24, 2013 13 <br /> 2. The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the <br /> area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; and, <br /> 3. The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the <br /> zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. <br /> Community Development Intern Bachler stated that while the above criteria is not directly <br /> referenced or required for PUD Amendment requests to add signage to a property, it does provide <br /> guidance for evaluating these types of applications. In this case, criteria one and three are most <br /> applicable. The PUD process itself permits the City to be flexible with signage standards <br /> depending on the needs and impact of a particular use. <br /> Community Development Intern Bachler explained that the Planning Commission met and <br /> discussed this item on June 5, 2013, and recommended approval of Planning Case 13-009 for a <br /> Planned Unit Development Amendment at 1201 County Road E. Staff recommends the following <br /> five conditions be included with the approval: <br /> 1. The master sign plan shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as <br /> amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as <br /> determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning <br /> Commission. <br /> 2. Freestanding signs shall be monument type ground signs with the copy resting on and <br /> supported by a solid base of brick or rock-faced block in a color similar to or <br /> complimentary to the main structure on the site. The material of the base must extend at <br /> least one-half way up the sides of the sign face. <br /> 3. Freestanding signs shall be located at least five (5) feet from any property line and shall <br /> not project over the property line. <br /> 4. Wall signs shall be comprised of individual cut, back-lit letters and shall not extend more <br /> than twelve (12) inches from the wall they are attached to. <br /> 5. In the event that the property at 1201 County Road E is subdivided to create a new parcel <br /> abutting Lexington Avenue and County Road E, the new corner parcel will be permitted <br /> only one freestanding sign and this sign shall be located on Lexington Avenue. <br /> Councilmember McClung asked why City Code would allow for two freestanding monument <br /> signs. <br /> Community Development Intern Bachler explained that the City Code allows for two <br /> monument signs for properties that front more than one public street; however they should be <br /> located on two separate roadways. The applicant was proposing to place both monument signs on <br /> County Road E. He added that the property owner was contemplating subdividing the property, <br /> and once this was complete, an additional monument sign could be added. <br /> Councilmember Holden commented that the monument sign size measures the signage alone <br /> and does not include the monument base. <br /> Community Development Intern Bachler stated that this was the case. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.