My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-13-23-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2023
>
02-13-23-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2023 11:04:21 AM
Creation date
2/13/2023 10:57:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
287
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 — December 7, 2022 9 <br />Mr. Ilazi stated this had to do with the site selection. He reported this site was chosen because of <br />its close proximity to Snelling Avenue. <br />Commissioner Collins expressed concern with the fact the applicant was proposing a sign that <br />was not allowed and a size that was not allowed. He was of the opinion the applicant was <br />requesting too much flexibility for sign 2. He wanted to see this property signed appropriately <br />given its location. <br />Chair Vijums commented another option would be to build a freestanding sign on the edge of <br />the parking lot to identify the building. He stated the building had no identifying factors <br />whatsoever, except for the words "Senior Living". <br />Mr. Ilazi reported this area of the parking lot was the main semi <br />the building. He stated there was not enough space for a freest <br />this area of the parking lot. <br />Commissioner Wicklund indicated the Commis <br />work. He reported the Commission had to decide <br />big non -branded marketing sign, but rather was <br />structure. _ <br />Mr. Ilazi indicated he was hoping the <br />explained it has taken some time t <br />concerns. <br />Chair Vijums opened the <br />Chair Vijums <br />There being no <br />access point for the rear of <br />sign and sign foundation in <br />to finway to make something <br />;rage sh ld be, so it wasn't just a <br />that fit with the character of the <br />Obe open by the end of January. He <br />plan and noted there were some visibility <br />the application to come forward and make comment. <br />closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. <br />Commissioner Wicklund st7ed he could support signs 1, 3 and 4 noting the logic for these <br />signs was clear. He recognized his role on this Commission was advisory to the City Council and <br />he believed the Commission has clearly voiced their concerns regarding sign 2. <br />Chair Vijums questioned if the Commission could add a condition stating the flexibility would <br />be granted for signs 1, 3 and 4 noting columns would have to be added to the monument sign, <br />and for sign 2 the applicant shall review options and provide options for sign size and design <br />considerations to better enhance the area consistent with the design and architecture onsite. <br />Commissioner Jefferys stated she was also questioning the marketing piece or purpose of this <br />sign. <br />Chair Vijums explained his condition would allow for a sign to be placed on the building, but <br />was requesting the applicant to review the options in order to provide a better design. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.