CCP 10-25-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 6, 1999 DRAFT 14 northwest comer of Phase I which faces west It had been his belief that this sign was for the _ tenants. Ms, Randall believed that there was a sign in this location for the tenants of the .. building. Commissioner Sand stated that he would not want the requested sign to be the only one in this area facing the road. Ms, Randall stated that the proposed sign would not face the road directly. Commissioner Sand stated that, with regard to the southern building, he could not recall if there was a sign on the southwest side of this building, Ifthere was a sign on this side, it would be consistent with the sign on the west side ofthe Phase I building. He been trying to determine if, when driving down the road, there was an identifiable logo on each of the buildings. If there is, he would not have a problem with an additional sign on the southwest face of the Phase IV building. Ms. Randall stated that there were no signs on the southwest side of the southern building and no signs are planned for it Chair Erickson confirmed that the building being proposed for a sign could have up to four signs on it Ms. Randall stated that this would be true ifthe Planning Commission chose to approve it that way, However, this was not what the applicant was requesting. She noted that the enlIy way to the building was not a split enlIy. Chair Erickson noted that these buildings were designed to be flexible and the Planning Commission must consider the ultimate signage allowed for the buildings, He confirmed from the staff report that when this planned unit development was approved, each building was allowed up to eight signs. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. She indicated that this number of signs was shown on the site plan of the first two Phase buildings. However, this Phase was not shown that way. e Chair Erickson confirmed that the other three buildings had been approved with two signs on either side of four doors for a total of eight signs. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct Commissioner Baker asked how many entries the building has. Ms. Randall stated that the building has two entries. She noted that the entry on the far end is split for two separate businesses. Chair Erickson stated that at some point the applicant could request two signs at every door to this building. He felt that, since this was allowed at the other three buildings, this would be a reasonable request Commissioner Sand noted that the applicant would be subject to a maximum of 480 square feet of signage. Commissioner Baker moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand to recommend approval of Planning Case 99-20, Planned Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a 60 square foot sign on the south side of the building located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, and that the applicant be allowed one free standing sign and two wall signs which are 60 square feet in area, at each entryway to the building for a total of 480 square feet of signage on the building which is less than 10 percent of the building facade as required by the Sign Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). e This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, October 25, 1999, City Council meeting,