My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-08-2017 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2017
>
03-08-2017 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/7/2017 12:12:23 PM
Creation date
6/7/2017 12:11:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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 – February 8, 2017 6 <br /> <br />C. Planning Case 17-004 – Sign Code Review <br /> <br />Hannah Rybak, WSB, explained the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2015 included <br />completing a review and update of the City’s Sign Code. Staff began work on this item last fall, <br />with the first task being a review of planning cases from the previous five years that included a <br />request to deviate from the Sign Code. The purpose of this review was to identify areas of the <br />Sign Code that may not be consistent with what businesses currently need for signage. The City <br />has approved 15 planning cases since 2012 that included the following breakdown of specific <br />requests: <br /> <br />• Greater area for wall sign: 7 cases <br />• Greater area for freestanding sign: 4 cases <br />• Greater height for freestanding sign: 2 cases <br />• Longer display period for temporary sign: 3 cases <br />• Greater area for temporary sign: 4 cases <br />• Electronic sign: 1 case <br />• Projecting sign: 1 case <br /> <br />Ms. Rybak reported staff compared the sign ordnances of the cities of Roseville, New Brighton, <br />Shoreview and Mounds View to the current Arden Hills sign ordinance based on the most <br />common types of deviations requested. The sign regulations included in the TCAAP <br />Redevelopment Codes were also reviewed. The purpose of this comparison was to identify <br />sections of the Sign Code that are or are not consistent with neighboring communities. <br /> <br />Ms. Rybak explained currently, the sign ordinance allows a set square footage of wall signage <br />based on the sign district the property is located in. This can be problematic, as it does not <br />account for different sized buildings within the same district. Mounds View is the only other city <br />in the study that regulates wall signage in this manner. The other cities regulate the amount of <br />wall signage permitted based on a percentage of the building square footage or façade area. This <br />allows for signage that fits individual buildings best, rather than a one size fits all approach. The <br />TCAAP Redevelopment Code uses a combination of both, allowing either a set square footage or <br />percent of the façade area, whichever is less. <br /> <br />Ms. Rybak reported a monument sign is a type of freestanding sign where the sign face is <br />mounted on the ground or a base rather than a pole. Sign Districts 4 and 5 only allow monument <br />signs for freestanding signs. For all districts, freestanding signs are allowed a set square footage <br />and height based on the sign district the property is located in. While none of the other cities <br />limit the style of freestanding signs to individual districts, Roseville, New Brighton and Mounds <br />View all regulate them in the same manner as Arden Hills; a set square footage based on sign <br />district. Shoreview allows a set square footage based on the gross floor area of the principal <br />structure. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows a set square footage for “Highway <br />Monument Signs” and a percentage of the street frontage for “Corridor Monument Signs.” <br /> <br />Ms. Rybak stated currently, the Sign Code does not allow any electronic or dynamic display <br />signs. All four cities that were reviewed allow for some type of dynamic display signs. They are <br />regulated as follows: <br /> <br />• Roseville: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 25 seconds.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.