03-08-23-PC Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 7, 2022 8 Commissioner Wicklund inquired if there was an option to create a monument sign on the piece of property near the retaining pond. Mr. Ilazi commented on the landscaping plan and noted this area was proposed to be planted with trees. Commissioner Jefferys explained she was concerned with labeling this building “Senior Living” versus branding the building as “New Perspective”. She requested further information regarding the proposed free standing monument sign noting that it do not conform with City Code. Mr. Ilazi anticipated he missed the column requirement and noted he could amend the monument sign to meet City Code requirements. Chair Vijums asked if additional signage has been allowed on other buildings like this. Community Development Director Jagoe stated she was not aware of history for any multi- tenant PUD’s having additional signage. She commented on the signage that was allowed for Launch Properties. Chair Vijums indicated signs 1, 3 and 4 were fine so long as the base material and design can be addressed. He stated sign 2 was more difficult for him to consider. He requested the applicant come up with other options for sign 2, as he believed sign 2 was currently being used as a marketing platform. Commissioner Mitchell stated if the purpose of sign 2 was to identify the building by its name, it would feel better if it had the New Perspective name, versus having the generic “Senior Living”. Community Development Director Jagoe explained when the Commission reviews signage, it should not be considering the content of the sign, but rather should consider the sign adjustment standards under the PUD for exceptional design, architecture of building, size to the scale of the building and area as well as location. Commissioner Collins commented it was his understanding this sign package was used in another state by the applicant. He noted the applicant was asking for flexibility on a sign type that was not allowed, and a size of sign that was not allowed. He questioned if the applicant had reviewed the City’s sign standards or if this was simply the sign package used for a previous project. Mr. Ilazi discussed the process that was followed for the sign package. He explained the monument signs were in their proposed locations for visibility purposes. He indicated the western elevation was the only side of the building that could hold a sign and noted the proposed building sign would be legible and viewable for passing traffic. He stated he would be willing to decrease the size of the building sign slightly. Commissioner Collins requested further information on why the building sign has to be viewable from Snelling Avenue.