CCP 07-30-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---.--- ~, Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Conunission Meeting, 7-11-90 Page 2 CASE #90-08 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly reconrrnended denial of the 5 ft. setback . variance, based on the follOW'ing: a. There is no valid hardship pertaining to the church site. b. There are suitable locations for sign placements that meet the setback requirements and may be superior to the proposed location. c. Placing a sign closer to the roadway for greater visibility is not in itself a valid reason for a variance. d. The site is in a residential area with virtually no other signs competing for the driver's attention. The Plarmer further reconrrnended that the sign permit be approved, subject to the denial of the variance, and that the applicant sulxnit detailed sign construction plans to the city, prior to installation. Bergly referred Conunission to the Board of Appeals minutes of 6-26-90, reconrrnending denial of the variance request based on no apparent site visibility hardship from New Brighton Road and apparent options for placement of the sign within the required setback further north on the site. Patricia Johnson, representing Trinity Lutheran Church, was present and explained the requested is to provide more visibility for the church sign; noted the proposed sign will contain a "reader board" which will provide information on programs offered at the church. Carl Reiner and Harry Eilers were also present. . Johnson des=ibed the design of the church building, limited green space for placement of the sign, and obstructions to sign visibility as identifiable hardships for placement of the sign within the required setbacks. She advised that the neighbors directly a=oss the street from the church have expressed approval of the request. Johnson distributed a "letter visibility chart" outlining readable distances for maxlinum inlpact of signs. Connnission questioned if the sign will be illuminated. Johnson stated the sign will be internally illuminated and landscaping is proposed along the base of the sign. Commissioner Piotrowski, Chair of the Board of Appeals, stated the sign is very attractive and the Board was not opposed to the design of the sign. She reiterated the Board found no identifiable hardships for reconrrnending approval of the requested variance and noted ample area for placement of the sign on this site at the required setbadc. Johnson pointed out the parking lot area on the northerly portion of the site is not surfaced and it would be easier to place the sign on the existing landscaped area on the site. .