11-25-13-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 30, 20138 development would spur further development in the area and he wanted to see it be extremely successful. Councilmember Holden expressed concern that Shannon Square tenants would come before the City requesting additional signage if this sign amendment were approved. Councilmember Holmes supported the monument sign at 20 feet. She requested clarification on the maximum sign area. Community Development Intern Bachler discussed the sign copy area of the sign in further detail with the Council. He stated the sign copy area recommended by staff originally was 135 square feet. Councilmember McClung commented that monument signs direct traffic into adjacent developments. He did not want to see the tenant panel signs made too small as this would make it difficult for passing traffic to read the signs. He recommended the Council offer the developer some level of flexibility on the monument sign. Councilmember Holden believed that a 20 foot monument sign would provide enough space for the tenant panel signs to be legible to passing traffic. She recommended the sign copy area be reduced to 100 square feet, as this would allow the monument sign to remain proportional. Mayor Grant questioned how far off the Lexington Avenue curb the monument sign would be placed. Community Development Intern Bachler explained the monument sign would be approximately 60 feet from the curb. Councilmember McClung called the question on the amendment motion. The amendment carried (5-0). Councilmember Holmes discussed the proposed window banner coatings and recommended these be included in the PUD Amendment request. This would ensure that the applicant would not have to reapply for an amendment to the sign plan in the future. Councilmember Holden questioned why the window banner coatings were requested by the applicant. Community Development Intern Bachler stated the window banner coatings were originally requested to allow the tenants to block out several windows of the corner bays. The applicant has since removed this request from consideration because the applicant is still negotiating leases for this space. He explained the applicant may use spandrel glass instead of coating the windows. He recommended the Council not address this issue at this time. Further discussion ensued regarding the use of spandrel glass versus transparent glass.