My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-16-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
04-25-16-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2016 9:29:28 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 4:34:56 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
312
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 PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2016 3 <br /> <br />7. That the Sign Standard Adjustments will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the <br />purpose or intent of the I-2 General Industrial District. <br />8. That increasing the amount of wall signage would not have a negative impact on adjacent <br />properties or the City as a whole. <br />9. That site conditions require a sign adjustment for the proposed sign to be reasonably <br />visible from the interstate highway adjacent to the site. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff <br />recommends approval of Planning Case 16-006 for a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard <br />Adjustment. Staff recommends the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: <br /> <br />1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended <br />by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by <br />the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council. <br />2. That the total wall signage on the building shall not exceed 190 square feet. <br />3. That the existing 180 square foot wall sign along Interstate 35W shall be removed. <br />4. That the applicant shall apply for a sign permit prior to the installation of the new sign. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson asked if the current sign could have been renovated without needing to receive <br />a variance. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff explained that the applicant could have repaired the existing sign but has <br />chosen to upgrade the sign. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth understood the new sign would have more information, while also <br />reducing the sign area. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff believed this to be the case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel questioned what materials the sign would be built out of and asked how <br />long the sign would last. <br /> <br />Mark Rasch, Sign Images, explained the new sign would be made out of aluminum and would <br />be affixed to the building by non-corrosive fasteners. He estimated the sign would last seven to <br />ten years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Bartel seconded a motion to <br />recommend approval of Planning Case 16-006 for a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.