Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> I <br /> , ,ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 27. 1995 4 <br /> F. Claims and Payroll. <br /> I MOTION: Hicks moved and Malone seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as <br /> corrected, and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. <br /> I The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> I Mayor Probst invited the audience to address the Council in regard to any issue not already on <br /> I the agenda There were no public comments at this time, <br /> UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> I Planning Case #94-01A. United Properties. <br /> I Community Development Director Ringwald briefly reviewed the Planning Case requesting a <br /> modification of their Special Use Permit to allow the installation of two four-foot by four-foot <br /> leasing signs at Arden Plaza. <br /> Ie Mr. Ringwald indicated the applicant has provided Staff with a copy of the proposed signage and <br /> a plan showing the proposed location of the two leasing signs with the setback identified. <br /> I Mr. Ringwald reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case 94- <br /> I OIA, SUP amendment (temporary leasing signage), subject to the following conditions: <br /> 1. Provision of detailed plans for the construction of the temporary leasing signs; <br /> . 2. Provision of a detailed map locating the temporary leasing signs, to be consistent <br /> with the setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance; <br /> 3. Provision of the temporary leasing signs in accordance with the definition of <br /> I temporary real estate signs as defined by the City Code; and <br /> 4, Removal of temporary leasing signs to occur six months after City Council <br /> approval of Planning Case 94-01A. <br /> I Councilmember Malone indicated he supported approval of the application, but noted the six <br /> month maximum will be enforced. He commented that there seem to have always been a <br /> I renta1/lease sign on the property, but encouraged Staff to vigorously enforce the time limitation <br /> of this and future sign applications. <br /> I The applicant requested if the six-month limitation could be enforced from the time that the sign <br /> is erected instead of the time of approval. Council felt there should be no problem with the <br /> ., ability to still erect the sign, but did agree to have the time limit start from the erection of the <br /> sign. <br /> I <br />