Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 5, 2011 6 <br /> <br />County Road E based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the thirteen <br />conditions in the January 5, 2011, Planning Case Report. The motion carried <br />unanimously (7-0). <br /> <br />B. Planning Case 11-002; Site Plan Review – Sign Standard Adjustment; 3920 <br />Northwoods Drive; 3900 Northwoods Drive, LLC – Not a Public Hearing <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman stated the applicant has requested a site plan review for a sign <br />standard adjustment that would allow for a deviation from the sign code for the height of <br />the freestanding sign located at 3920 Northwoods Drive. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman provided background information and stated the Planning <br />Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed sign standard <br />adjustment at 3920 Northwoods Drive meets the criteria in the Sign Code to deviate from <br />the sign regulations and if the increased height of the signage would adversely affect the <br />surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole. Staff offers the following <br />twelve findings for consideration: <br />1. The property is located in the B-3 Zoning District and Sign District 7. <br />2. In Sign District 7 freestanding signs are permitted up to 25 square-feet and eight-feet <br />in height. <br />3. The property is a conforming use in the B-3 Zoning District. <br />4. The existing freestanding sign is 16-feet in height and 102 square-feet in size, and <br />exceeds the maximum size standards in Sign District 7. <br />5. The existing freestanding sign is adjacent to Highway 694. <br />6. The proposed sign would be 35-feet in height and 102 square-feet in size. <br />7. Adjacent businesses have freestanding signs that are 35 feet in height along Highway <br />694. <br />8. The sign would not be visible from residential properties. <br />9. Section 1260 of the Sign Code permits deviations from the Sign Code through the site <br />plan review process. <br />10. The location of the office building and the placement of the existing sign limit the <br />visibility of the sign from I-694 eastbound. <br />11. The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of <br />the B-3 Zoning District. <br />12. The sign would not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a <br />whole. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #11-002 for a <br />Site Plan Review for a sign standard adjustment based on the findings of fact, the <br />submitted application, and the January 5, 2011, Planning Case Report. <br /> <br />Vice-Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commission questions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the sign was on the applicant’s property or in the <br />City right of way. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman stated it was located on the applicant’s property. <br /> <br />