Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20135 <br /> <br />that a Final PUD with a sign plan would have to be submitted by the applicant when Phase III <br />was ready for development. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts commented he was not prepared to request signage for the other parcels this evening <br />and would have to come back to the City at a future date. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa asked how many tenants would be allowed space on the monument sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts indicated there would be room for seven tenants to have panels on the monument <br />sign. The proposed sign size would allow for the panels to be readable to passing traffic for the <br />high class development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson requested comment from the applicant on the proposed conditions for <br />approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts explained he has been working with the City and his only concern remained with the <br />80 square feet wall sign limit. It was his opinion that the blade signs should not count against the <br />80 square feet of allowable signage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stodola recommended the signage in Lexington Station complement the existing <br />signage in the Shoreview developments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa asked if the applicant was comfortable with the downsized signs as <br />recommended by staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts was hoping to have the monument sign be 24 feet in height and requested the blade <br />signs not count against the total allowable signage per tenant. He requested there be a <br />compromise and that several of the conditions for approval be modified. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hames appreciated the architectural beauty of the monument sign and supported <br />the 26 foot proposed height as it suited the scale of the building. She recommended the <br />monument sign be approved at 24 or 26 feet as requested by the applicant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa did not support the 26 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stodola questioned if the applicant was comfortable with the fact that not all <br />tenants would have access to the monument sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts understood this fact and stated this was acceptable. He then discussed Condition 9, <br />regarding non-branded window film. He requested the Commission allow for non-branded <br />window film as this would add architectural interest to windows for tenants. He did not want to <br />have to come back to the City each time a tenant requested window coatings. <br /> <br />Community Development Intern Bachler stated this condition was added to address branded or <br />advertising window coatings. Staff did not object to window coatings and explained that non- <br /> <br /> <br />