Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 5, 2024 8 <br /> <br />and later learned the sign was non-conforming. He commented on how things got put on hold <br />due to COVID. He requested the City consider sign flexibility, due to the fact the sign was not <br />completed within the first year due to extenuating circumstances. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund requested further information on the Primrose School. <br /> <br />Mr. Grimaliani explained Primrose School was an early childhood (daycare) program that <br />caters to children from six weeks of age to six years. He noted this was a private for-profit <br />Montessori type school. He indicated there were 550 Primrose Schools nationwide and 21 <br />locations in the Twin Cities. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blilie stated she was in favor of this proposal but did not support extra <br />landscaping requirements as a required condition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell agreed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he had a number of concerns. He stated the structure has <br />been unused for four and a half years. He explained the total sign copy allowed was 45 feet and <br />the Applicant was requesting 87 feet. He reported the maximum height allowed was 12 feet and <br />this sign would be 27.7 feet high. He commented this sign was very tall and the overhang was <br />unclear. It was his understanding this sign was very close to the property line. He reported non- <br />conforming signs were not to be enlarged or expanded. He stated this was clearly a non- <br />conforming sign. In addition, non-conforming signs were to be discontinued after a year of non- <br />use. He did not support the City violating these portions of the sign ordinance. He reported he <br />did not like this sign because it was too big and too close to the property line. He supported this <br />property moving forward with a ground mounted monument sign in conformance with the sign <br />code. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated he appreciated how the applicant was working to maximize an <br />existing asset. He understood Sign Art was a great company to work with. He shared an image of <br />the sign that was across the street to the north, noting he would like the Commission to consider <br />an additional condition to read: Applicant shall work with City staff and provide appropriate and <br />feasible landscaping around the existing sign. He stated he was in favor of the request before the <br />Commission with the additional condition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blilie indicated she supported the Applicant being allowed to use the existing <br />sign versus requiring them to tear it down. She indicated she accepted the additional condition <br />regarding the landscaping. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell reported she also supported the existing sign being used, versus wasting <br />money on tearing it down. She believed the proposed sign was a reasonable alternative given the <br />situation and makes the best use of the property. In addition, she supported the sign having <br />landscaping around it. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Collins explained he was in favor of keeping the sign as well. He questioned how <br />the City was to determine what was “appropriate landscaping”. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund stated he would be amenable to other language for his condition that <br />would better reflect or provide clarity to staff. He was of the opinion staff could determine what <br />type of landscaping would be appropriate at the base of the sign.