My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-08-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCP 11-08-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:43 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 11:27:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
159
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 />~~c <br />Ii .. <br />~,-4-' <br /> <br />r'_:~\\.~ <br />i .\ i,;~ ~ <br />fJ'''''i"E Ii! <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson seconded the amended motion. The motion carried <br />unanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4. Case #99-20, Apache Group, 1787 Gateway Boulevard, Planned Unit <br />Development Amendment <br /> <br />Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to the <br />planned unit development to relocate the signage on a building located at 1787 Gateway <br />Boulevard. <br /> <br />The three buildings on this property each have one free standing sign with the address. The free <br />standing sign at this building also includes the company name and logo. <br /> <br />The Zoning Ordinance requires that a sign plan be submitted in the conjunction with site plans in <br />the Gateway Business District that show the location, type, size, and design of the individual <br />signs. When the planned unit development was originally approved in 1997, two signs were <br />shown at the entrance on the east side of the building. The Planning Commission memo, for <br />Planning Case #97-06, dated July 2,1997, stated that each building would have one free standing <br />sign and two business signs which are 60 square feet in area, at each of the four entries to the <br />building. This building, however, does not have four entries, thus the number of signs shown on <br />the plan were only two for the north east entrance. However, the building does lend itself to <br />having additional doors in the future. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The building currently has an angled front entry facing to the southeast. The applicant was <br />requesting the ability to move one of the signs from the east entrance to the south side of the <br />building next to the angled entryway. This would be a more visible location and customers <br />would be able to see the sign from the public street <br /> <br />The applicant was willing to give up one of the signs at the northeast entrance in lieu of the new <br />proposed sign. Staff would recommend that the applicant be allowed to keep the signage on <br />either side of the entrances in addition to the proposed sign. The building would have a total of <br />three signs, which is still under the number of signs on the other two buildings which have up to <br />eight signs. This would give the applicant the ability to modify the signage without a planned <br />unit development amendment in the future if tenants change. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case <br />#99-20, Planned Unit Development Amendment, to allow for a 60 square foot sign on the south <br />side of the building located at 1787 Gateway Boulevard, and that the applicant be allowed one <br />free standing sign and two wall signs, which are 60 square feet in area, at each entryway to the <br />building for a total of 480 square feet of signage on the building, which is less than 10 percent of <br />the building facade as required by the Sign Ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked if lighting was included for the proposed sign. Ms. Randall stated that the <br />sign would not be illuminated. She indicated that none of the existing signs are illuminated. She <br />did not believe that the City had any restrictions on sign lighting, however, the applicant would <br />have to abide by the Lighting Ordinance and the lighting requirements in the Sign Ordinance. <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.