12-07-22 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 7, 2022 9 Mr. Ilazi stated this had to do with the site selection. He reported this site was chosen because of its close proximity to Snelling Avenue. Commissioner Collins expressed concern with the fact the applicant was proposing a sign that was not allowed and a size that was not allowed. He was of the opinion the applicant was requesting too much flexibility for sign 2. He wanted to see this property signed appropriately given its location. Chair Vijums commented another option would be to build a freestanding sign on the edge of the parking lot to identify the building. He stated the building had no identifying factors whatsoever, except for the words “Senior Living”. Mr. Ilazi reported this area of the parking lot was the main semi-truck access point for the rear of the building. He stated there was not enough space for a freestanding sign and sign foundation in this area of the parking lot. Commissioner Wicklund indicated the Commission wanted to find a way to make something work. He reported the Commission had to decide where the signage should be, so it wasn’t just a big non-branded marketing sign, but rather was something that fit with the character of the structure. Mr. Ilazi indicated he was hoping the building would be open by the end of January. He explained it has taken some time to design a sign plan and noted there were some visibility concerns. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comments Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Commissioner Wicklund stated he could support signs 1, 3 and 4 noting the logic for these signs was clear. He recognized his role on this Commission was advisory to the City Council and he believed the Commission has clearly voiced their concerns regarding sign 2. Chair Vijums questioned if the Commission could add a condition stating the flexibility would be granted for signs 1, 3 and 4 noting columns would have to be added to the monument sign, and for sign 2 the applicant shall review options and provide options for sign size and design considerations to better enhance the area consistent with the design and architecture onsite. Commissioner Jefferys stated she was also questioning the marketing piece or purpose of this sign. Chair Vijums explained his condition would allow for a sign to be placed on the building, but was requesting the applicant to review the options in order to provide a better design.