Laserfiche WebLink
NEW BUSINESS –8A <br />Notice <br />Although a Site Plan Review does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was <br />prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject <br />property. <br />Findings of Fact <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their January 8, 2014, meeting, and have <br />offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: <br />1.The property is located in theR-4 Multiple Dwelling District. <br />2.The property is located in Sign District 3. <br />3.In Sign District 3,wall signage up to twenty (20) square feet and freestandingsignage up <br />to thirty-two (32) square feet is permitted. <br />4.For single occupant parcels, no more than one(1)permitted temporary sign shall be <br />permitted at any given time. The area of the temporary signage shall not exceed one half <br />of the permitted wall sign area.Displayed for a maximum of thirty (30) days. <br />5.Buildings with lease or vacant space may obtain one(1)temporary wall sign not to <br />exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in size.Displayed for a maximum of seven (7) days <br />after the building is leased. <br />6.The applicantis proposing two (2) temporary wall signsto be located on the building. <br />7.The proposed temporary wall signfacing I-694 wouldmeasure six (6) feet by forty (40) <br />feet, an area of 240 square feet. <br />8.The proposed temporary wall signfacing County Road F would measure six (6)feet by <br />thirty (33)feet, an area of 198square feet. <br />9.Section 1260 of the Sign Code permits deviation from the Sign Code through the Site <br />Plan Review process. <br />10.The proposed signs would be displayed from the date the sign permit is issued to July 1, <br />2014. <br />11.Sign Code regulations on the permit length of temporary signage would limit the owner’s <br />ability to effectively advertise the availability of apartment units in the building. <br />12.The signs would not be in direct view from residential properties. <br />13.The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purposeof the R- <br />4 Multiple Dwelling District. <br />14.Increasing the amount of temporary wall signage would not have a negative impact on <br />adjacent properties or the City as a whole. <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting for January 27, 2014 <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-023 -Arden Village -Sign Standard Adjustment\Memos_Reports_13-023 <br />46 <br />Page of <br />