Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – FEBRUARY 10, 2025 6 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant stated he believed the proposed sign easement was a good idea, noting this location <br />would be visible from 694 and was a prominent corner in Arden Hills. He indicated the applicant <br />was requesting a PUD amendment and he was of the opinion the request for a sign easement <br />would be appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Weber reported he believed this was a clever idea. <br /> <br />City Administrator Jagoe stated if the Council moved this item forward by tabling, staff could <br />work with the property owner on a potential easement. She commented there may be another <br />option to incorporate an Arden Hills logo onto a future combined monument sign for the <br />businesses. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if this should be made a condition for approval. <br /> <br />City Administrator Jagoe suggested the Council add a condition that would require the property <br />owner’s consent to grant an easement or work with the City to incorporate future signage on any <br />freestanding signage. However, if the property owner denied this request, the City would move <br />the item forward and permit the signage. She commented if the Council wanted to know the <br />property owners answer, she suggested the item be tabled with direction to staff that information <br />be gathered from the applicant and that the item return to the City Council on March 10. <br /> <br />Rick Ferarro, Spectrum Signs President, explained he was representing Altus Properties, CPC <br />and Delkor. He reported he understood the request the Council was making, but he asked that the <br />PUD amendment move forward with an increased sign size from 4.5 square feet for the code <br />allowed 6 square feet. He explained CPC and Delkor were having trouble with deliveries and <br />logistics right now. He reported the new signs would assist with guiding or directing traffic in a <br />safe and efficient manner. He discussed how the proposed sign easement was an entirely different <br />conversation that could be held with the ownership group. He recommended this be treated as a <br />side conversation than the requested way finding signage. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden indicated this was the first time the City Council had reviewed this <br />request and she believed now was the time for the Council to request an easement because this <br />was an important property in Arden Hills. She supported this item being tabled for one month in <br />order to allow for further conversations to be held regarding the proposed easement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Weber questioned when this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />City Administrator Jagoe reported this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on <br />January 8. <br /> <br />Councilmember Weber commented he loved the idea of a monument sign for the City on this <br />property, but indicated he did not support strong arming the applicant in order to achieve this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden explained she was not strong arming the applicant over this but rather <br />was requesting action on this item be postponed for 30 days in order to have an easement request <br />considered. <br /> <br />Councilmember Monson requested further information on how the Council could move this <br />item forward with a condition for approval regarding the sign easement.