Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 7, 2022 7 <br /> <br />would go to the City Council for further consideration. She requested the Commission be clear <br />regarding what the recommendation for the roof sign. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys commented it appears the wall sign was being used for advertising due <br />to the fact the applicant states within the staff report that the proposed sign size was necessary <br />due to the speed of traffic along Snelling Avenue. She explained she would like the applicant t o <br />speak to the Commission regarding the proposed sign size. In addition, she also wanted to learn <br />more about the different sign design for the free standing sign. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell indicated there was a science to signage and the size of a sign should be <br />calculated to be useful based on the surrounding lighting conditions, whether people are in <br />motion, and proposed typeface. She stated for the sign proposed for the parapet should be <br />calculated and properly scaled for the building. She encouraged the applicant to pursue a sign <br />that was large enough to be useful, but not larger than that. She questioned how the applicant <br />arrived at the proposed sign size. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys stated she also wanted to know what the purpose was for the sign. She <br />anticipated people visiting this building, were doing so on purpose. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums commented on how the monument signs along Snelling Avenue help with <br />directing traffic. He believed the proposed building sign was being used for advertising purposes <br />based on its size. He invited the applicant to come up at this time to address the Commission. <br /> <br />Florent Ilazi, Arden Hills RE, LLC, thanked the Commission for their time and consideration. <br />He discussed the proposed building sign. He stated he understood the sign was 3½ times larger <br />than was allowed by sign code, but noted the sign was only 1% of the building area. He believed <br />this was a key distinction when considering sign size. He discussed how the building was <br />oriented on the property and how far it was from Snelling Avenue. He reported this was the same <br />sign that was used for a similar project that was completed in Wisconsin. He indicated there was <br />no other location for signage on the building. He stated due to the distance and speed of passing <br />traffic, a larger sign was being requested. He noted he could reduce the sign size slightly if this <br />was a concern of the Commission. He commented further on the landscape plan and indicated <br />the site would be heavily wooded, which led him to the proposed location for the roof sign. He <br />reviewed the building elevations in further detail and noted there was no other location for wall <br />signage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated he was happy to have this new housing in Arden Hills. He <br />noted he works out of the Bethel Anderson Center building. He believed there was no confusion <br />when driving to the Bethel Anderson Center or New Perspective Senior Housing building. He <br />believed that the generic use of “Senior Living” on the building was being done for marketing <br />purposes and asked that the applicant speak to this. He questioned why the applicant was not <br />considering a higher quality branded sign for the building. <br /> <br />Mr. Ilazi explained the colors were intentional and the sign was simple and legible for viewing <br />purposes. He noted this was based on science. He indicated this was a tricky area for due to the <br />large amount of traffic along Snelling Avenue and County Road E. <br />