My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCP 04-06-2005
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2004-2009
>
PC Packets 2005
>
PCP 04-06-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:22 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:56:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
130
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Findings and Recommendation . <br /> In regard to the Sign Standard Adjustment criteria staff has made the following findings: <br /> 1. There are site conditions (traffic, readability for traffic moving 50+ mph) which require a <br /> sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent <br /> to the site. <br /> 2. The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that has potential to <br /> enhance the area (one sign for several agencies) and is more consistent with the architecture <br /> and design of the site. <br /> 3. The sign adjustment will result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the sign <br /> district and the zoning district in which the property is located. <br /> Therefore, in Planning Case #05-10 staffrecommends denial of the Sign Standard Adjustment <br /> based on the aforementioned findings and for the following reasons: <br /> 1. While the sign would be visible from Highway 96, the amount of information <br /> required for sign and the speed of traffic on Highway 96 (which would increase the <br /> need larger text) may require a Sign Standard Adjustment. However, a smaller <br /> variance from the Sign Ordinance Standards would still result in greater visibility and <br /> would be more consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance Standards. <br /> 2. The proposed sign is inconsistent with both the Civic Center Zoning District and Sign . <br /> District 6 which anticipated more destination oriented facilities that would not require <br /> as much signage as the commercial zoning and signage districts. The proposed sign <br /> is much larger than allowed for any commercial zoning and signage districts in the <br /> City. <br /> Plan Review Comments <br /> A. If building or electrical permits are required, applications and plans shall be submitted to <br /> the Building Official a minimum of two (2) weeks before the planned start of <br /> construction. <br /> B. No construction shall begin before plans are approved by the City of Arden Hills' <br /> Building Official. <br /> C. A Sign Permit is necessary for all sign installation in the City of Arden Hills and would <br /> still be required if this sign variance is approved. <br /> \\Earth\Planning\Planning Cases\2005\05-10 RCPWF Sign Variance (PENDING)\04-06-05 PC Report OS-lO.doc . <br /> Page 6 0/7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.