Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Planning commission Meeting Minutes - 9/01/93 4 . <br /> 4. The use on the property is allowed and does utilize one Area <br /> Identification sign with a maximum of 50 sq. ft. <br /> 5. The ordinance allows variances from the dimensional <br /> requirements of the regulations if a hardship exists. <br /> 6. The site does not appear to have the required hardship. <br /> Staff was unable to determine a hardship, therefore, they <br /> recommend denial of the sign variance request. <br /> Gary Bailey, joint partner of the complex, stated that the <br /> complex houses 72 units and the residents pay taxes of <br /> approximately $1,100. This is comparable to homes in the area. <br /> He also stated that in his opinion, the City of Arden Hills has <br /> in the past been very negative toward apartment complexes. Mr. <br /> Bailey feels that because of this attitude, the Arden Hills Sign <br /> Ordinance was developed such that it gave no consideration to <br /> people in apartments. Apartments do have some special needs and <br /> should be given special consideration. <br /> Mr. Bailey stated the sign is needed for two reasons: . <br /> 1. Advertising -- the apartments need to be marketed <br /> on a regular basis. <br /> 2. The apartment building is very hard to find. The <br /> residents have problems with guests finding it and <br /> deliveries made. <br /> Mr. Bailey feels the sign is very non-offensive and feels it fits <br /> in with the size of the complex. The three foot sign that is <br /> allowed by the ordinance does not meet the needs of the apartment <br /> complex and feels they should be given special consideration. <br /> Chair Winiecki asked for comments from the Commission. <br /> Steve Erickson asked how the staff determined it was a Real <br /> Estate Class III sign. Fritsinger stated that the verbiage with <br /> the telephone number identifies it as units available for rent, <br /> therefore, falling under the classification of a Real Estate <br /> sign. <br /> McGraw asked if anything under the ordinance stipulates that if <br /> the sign faces two streets, would they be allowed additional <br /> signs. Fritsinger stated that the ordinance does not stipulate <br /> location of the sign/signs. <br /> . <br /> --...- <br />