09-09-13-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of eighty-four and one half square feet (84.50).The existing pole sign is described as being a legal non-conforming sign. It has been given this designation as “pole signs” are no longer allowed in Sign District 4 (County Road E Frontage). Freestanding signs in Sign District 4 are still permitted; however, they must be constructed as a monument type ground sign. There is an existing cabinet area on the sign that measures thirty-five inches by sixty-three and one eighth inches(35” x 63 1/8”)thatthe applicant intends to replace with a digital LED price sign. The digital section of this cabinet would be approximately 15.35 square feetin size with twenty-four (24) inch numbers to display the price. The remaining balance of the sign would remain unchanged other than typical signage updates to the remaining cabinet sections. No other portions of the sign would be digital in nature. The applicant has submitted a description of the proposedchange in signage (Attachment A), renderings of the sign face (Attachment B) and anaerial site plan of the property (Attachment C). Related Planning Cases The property owner submitted a similar request in 2006, which was approved under the Site Plan Review process, to add a twenty (20) square foot electronic message board. This particular off- premise sign is currently used to market the auto repair shop just south of the subject property that has no frontage onto County Road E. VarianceEvaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria citiesmust use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intentof the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for September 9, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 2of 6