02-07-18 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved: March 8, 2017 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2017 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS C. Planning Case 17-004 – Sign Code Review Hannah Rybak, WSB, explained the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2015 included completing a review and update of the City’s Sign Code. Staff began work on this item last fall, with the first task being a review of planning cases from the previous five years that included a request to deviate from the Sign Code. The purpose of this review was to identify areas of the Sign Code that may not be consistent with what businesses currently need for signage. The City has approved 15 planning cases since 2012 that included the following breakdown of specific requests: • Greater area for wall sign: 7 cases • Greater area for freestanding sign: 4 cases • Greater height for freestanding sign: 2 cases • Longer display period for temporary sign: 3 cases • Greater area for temporary sign: 4 cases • Electronic sign: 1 case • Projecting sign: 1 case Ms. Rybak reported staff compared the sign ordnances of the cities of Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview and Mounds View to the current Arden Hills sign ordinance based on the most common types of deviations requested. The sign regulations included in the TCAAP Redevelopment Codes were also reviewed. The purpose of this comparison was to identify sections of the Sign Code that are or are not consistent with neighboring communities. Ms. Rybak explained currently, the sign ordinance allows a set square footage of wall signage based on the sign district the property is located in. This can be problematic, as it does not account for different sized buildings within the same district. Mounds View is the only other city in the study that regulates wall signage in this manner. The other cities regulate the amount of wall signage permitted based on a percentage of the building square footage or façade area. This allows for signage that fits individual buildings best, rather than a one size fits all approach. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code uses a combination of both, allowing either a set square footage or percent of the façade area, whichever is less.