CC 10-12-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 12, 1987, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were present: Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmembers Nancy . Hansen, Gary Peck, and Jeanne Winiecki. Absent: Councilmember Thomas Sather. Also present: Attorney James Lynden, Planner Orlyn Miller, Public Works Supervisor Robert Raddatz, Clerk Administrator Patricia Morrison and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. APPROVE MINUTES Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the minutes of the Regular meeting of September 28, 1987 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0 ) BUSINESS FROM FLOOR None. RES #87-65; NOV. Doug Hill, representing the Epilepsy Foundation of EPILEPSY MONTH Minnesota, appeared before the Council to request their support in proclaiming the month of November as Epilepsy month in the City of Arden Hills. Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Resolution No. 87-65; PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER TO BE EPILEPSY MONTH IN THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) CASE #87-30; SUP ROOF Council was referred to Planner's report of 9/28/87 . SIGNS, 3628 CONNELLY, and Planning Commission minutes of 10/7/87, TRANS. ELECTRONICS recommending approval of one rooftop sign, with conditions. Planner Hiller reviewed the background of the business and the relationship of the applicant's building on Connelly St. to other buildings in the area. He explained that the rooftop sign would extend approximatley 8-1/2 ft. above the roof, as proposed, and sign size would meet current code requirements. Miller noted that the Commission determined that a roof sign facing in a southerly direction would be beneficial, however, a westerly facing sign on the roof would not be visible, therefore only one should be permitted. The Planner discussed the continuance of the mansard roof treatment on the building for aesthetics; he noted that the CommissiOQ had discussed placement of the sign on the building or on the mansard roof; the applicant advised that a sign located on the building itself would not be beneficial and noted that signs placed on mansard roofs usually become unattractive due to staining. Miller pointed out that a free standing sign of 16 ft. would be permitted without SUP, however, a setback variance would be necessary. He commented that if the sign were kept flush with the roof of the building, rather than mounted on the proposed frame, it would be possible to achieve close to 16 ft. in . height, which is the current height requirement for free-standing signs. Council asked for the Planner's opinion relative to increased visibility of the sign if the 3 ft. 6 in. mounting were utilized; Hiller advised that visibility would be improved but not significantly increased; he explained that the problem from eastbound traffic is more a narrow window of vision rather than the height factor. Mr. Petersen, Transportation Electronics, was present to answer any Council questions. CounciImember Peck questioned if the SUP would cease when the applicant vacates the property. Miller advised that normally the SUP is tied to the land, rather than the business, however, a stipulation could included be in the SUP to terminate the sign when the business vacates the property. Attorney Lynden agreed. Council discussed the height of the sign, placement of the sign off the premises, and free-standing sign versus rooftop placement. Miller noted that there is no provision in the sign ordinance for placement of . the sign off the premises.