12-06-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, 12-6-89 Page 7 CASE #89-14 (Cont'd) Bergly stated the applicant proposes to have wall-mounted signs on the north, east and south sides of their new structure on Lexington Avenue. The signs are identical to those used on other Goodyear Center--,with the exception of the owner's panel. He noted this site is treated under the "Multiple Occupancy Structure" section of the Sign Ordinance, with additional regulations in the "Commercial and Industrial Sign" table. The Planner noted previous actions by the Planning Commission and Council on this development have indicated very clearly that variances for signage would not be granted for subsequent individual sign permit applications. Bergly stated individual tenants for multiple-occupancy structure are allowed one sign per entrance; the Zoning Administrator has determined that the service bay doors do not constitute "entrances". There is one pedestrian entrance on the east and one on the south side of the facility for the Goodyear Service center. Commission was referred to the diagram of the proposed signs on the south side of the building. The Planner explained wall-mounted signs up to 10 percent of the building facade. He stated the applicant is proposing two signs on the south side of the building, however, only one is permitted in this location. Bergly recommended the smaller sign be combined with the larger sign to form a single sign and the applicant has indicated this could be accomplished to meet the requirements. Bergly displayed a diagram of the two signs proposed on the east side of the building. He noted the larger sign is 48 sq. ft. and the smaller sign is 24 sq. ft. If the two signs are treated as a single sign, the geometric figure formed by the outer edges of all letters is approximately 16 percent of the facade area of 960 sq. ft. He recommended the signs be consolidated into one sign, either by • using smaller letters to decrease the percentage of the geometric figure shown or placing all the wording on a single line to meet the percentage requirements. The Planner stated the sign proposed for the north side of the building is not permitted since there is no entrance on the north facade. The applicant has verbally agreed not to pursue this sign. Bergly recommended the requested sign permit be approved with the following considerations: 1. The two signs on the east side of the building be consolidated into a single sign with a maximum sign area of 96 square feet. 2. The two signs on the south side of the building be consolidated into a single sign using the same size letters as proposed. 3. The sign on the north side of the building be withdrawn from the application. 4. The applicant resubmit a sign plan with changes noted above before the sign permit is issued. If the changes can be made prior to the Council meeting, the application could be approved without conditions. There was discussion relative to the consolidation of the signs on the south facade of the building. It was Commission consensus that a combined sign with all blue lettering would be preferable on this side of the building. • After discussion relative to the proposed sign on the east facade of the building, Commission concurred the applicant should consider either stacking the two signs closer together to meet the sign ordinance requirements or consolidating the lettering on one line to meet the requirements. Commission noted their preference for the the "stacked" sign design, if the applicant can move the signs closer to achieve the sign ordinance requirements.