12-07-1988 PTRC Agenda-Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 4 CASE #88-35 (Cont'd) Dennis Trisler, President of Northland Construction Management and representing Burger King, stated due to the depth of the lot the additional directional sign is necessary for safe traffic flow, and the low clearance sign variance is essential to protect the • patron vehicles and the building. Trisler stated the Commission should keep in mind the definition of "hardship" and explained the restraint of trade could define a hardship as created by a Municipal body by imposing a hardship on a developer. It was his opinion the sign Ordinance requirements imposes a hardship on the Burger King development in this particular situation. Trisler advised he had re-measured the McDonald's menu board sign and found it to be 5.9 ft. , which exceeds the Ordinance requirements of 4 ft. He stated the McDonald's menu board also displays pictures of the food products and requested the same consideration be given to the Burger King request. Trisler noted the Blue Fox Inn, located west of this site has a "reader board" sign located on its pylon business sign. He stated the developer elected to have one pylon sign, rather than split the lot and allow two signs. He also referred to the landscaping requirements imposed with the approval of the site plan; it was indicated that the landscaping may hinder the visual impact of the Burger King site when fully matured. Trisler stated he would be agreeable to accept an adjustment to 22 ft. rather than 24 ft. in the business sign height variance request; he noted the Blue Fox Inn sign is at 22 ft. He agreed partially with the the Board of Appeals recommendation to approve a variance of 12 sq. ft. , however, he preferred to maintain the reader board on the pylon sign. He also noted the Blue Fox Inn sign • is a total of 128 sq. ft. in area; the Burger King sign and the unidentified tenant sign would be 16 sq. ft. less than the Blue Fox Inn sign. He stated it is his understanding a permit was not issued for the reader board sign at the Blue Fox Inn. Member Zehm advised that the Blue Fox Inn sign height variance precedes the passage date of the current Sign Ordinance. Member Probst commented that during his one year of service on the Planning Commission on more than one occasion a site plan has been received from a developer without a signage plan and upon submission of the signage plan variances are requested. He stated that the developers are given copies of the Sign Ordinance and should adhere to the regulations. Probst also stated that the applicant has indicated the landscaping may hinder the sign visibility when plantings mature. Probst is of the opinion the landscape design should be redesigned so as not to obstruct sign visibility and should not be given Commission consideration relative to the requested variances. He suggested the recommendations for approval and denial of the requested variances, as outlined by the Planner in his report of 12-7-88, should be considered by the Commission. There was Commission discussion relative to the equality of the sign sizes for the two business occupants on the site. Curtis stated he would be receptive to a reasonable height variance to allow equal tenant signage, however, he would prefer not to have a reader board included. Malone stated the two tenants should be responsible for negotiating the sign • sizes. Trisler advised that C.G. Rein, the site developer, and Burger King have agreed on the proposed signage plan. He stated that the other tenants have not discussed any variance requests nor disagreed with the signage plan.