05-09-18 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 9, 2018 12 Mr. Finnemore reported this would be his intent. Further discussion ensued regarding the traffic flow in and out of this property. Commissioner Jones questioned if Primrose Schools had plans for the remainder of the land for the future. Mr. Finnemore commented there were no plans in place at this time. He explained that a portion of the land was not developable because of the wetlands. He asked if the franchisee would be able to utilize and recondition the existing sign on the property. He stated a lower sign would be less visible. Chair Thompson indicated she had concerns about the design of the existing sign. City Planner Bachler reported the current sign was non-conforming due to its size and height. He stated this sign could continue and be replaced for current users but could not be expanded in any way or relocated. He explained the Planning Commission could look at modifying Conditions 5 and 6. Chair Thompson commented the new conditions would state the property owner will work with the City to utilize the existing sign while continuing to meet City sign requirements. She stated her goal would be to make the sign more attractive. City Planner Bachler indicated staff’s preference would be to have a monument sign installed versus reconditioning the existing sign. He suggested the condition state the applicant will work with staff on any plans to modify the existing pole sign so that all plans are in conformance with the sign code. He noted a sign permit application would have to be submitted to City staff. Chair Thompson recommended Condition 5 remain be amended to remove the words free- standing monument sign that Condition 6 also be amended per staff direction. City Planner Bachler supported this recommendation and suggested Condition 6 read: A sign permit shall be required for renovation of the existing free-standing sign and for any wall signage. The existing pylon sign will remain in place so long as any modifications are in conformance with the City’s sign code requirements. Chair Thompson commented a sign permit would still be required for all other signage on the property. Commissioner Lambeth stated he would like the Commission to consider minimizing the requirements and conditions for this request. He noted the existing sign was already in place, it was too high and was non-conforming. He encouraged the Commission to restrain piling on additional conditions that were not necessary for this case. Chair Thompson recommended the applicant have sign renderings available prior to this item being reviewed by the City Council.