My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7E, Planning Case 09-007 Site Plan Review for 3585 Lexington Avenue North
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
05-11-09-R
>
7E, Planning Case 09-007 Site Plan Review for 3585 Lexington Avenue North
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2009 11:34:43 AM
Creation date
5/12/2009 11:31:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Planning Case 2009-07 - Site Plan Review
General - Type
3585 Lexington Avenue North
Date
5/11/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 />City Planner Beekman replied in the affirmative, and added the signs could not exceed <br />six square feet and only one sign at a time could be placed in this location. She noted the <br />tenants will be required to work out whose sign is placed in this location at any given <br />time and the City would not regulate that aspect of the sign placement. She reiterated this <br />is intended as a temporary solution and the sign standard adjustment will expire upon the <br />implementation of a new monument sign on the site or within two years of the date of <br />issuance, whichever comes first. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa asked about the right-of-way and whether consideration was <br />given to signs being placed in the right-of-way. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman replied signs would not be placed in the right-of-way and noted <br />the sidewalk is on Arden Plaza private property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if this request falls under the clear vision area <br />ordinance in place for intersections such that the sign would not block the view of traffic <br />trying to enter County Road E. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman replied the proposed project does not contradict with the clear <br />vision ordinance, and that signs placed in this area would be required to meet the <br />requirements of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated he would like to see a condition added that states that <br />the sign cannot be placed such that it will block visibility exiting the development, <br />particularly since there is a sidewalk in the vicinity. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman stated that such a condition could be added, although this is <br />currently covered by the zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Chair Larson asked if the sign would be required to be removed after business hours. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman replied in the affirmative. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa requested clarification regarding the six square feet on the signage <br />and whether this pertains to only one side. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman replied that the total square footage only counts on one side; in <br />other words, if a sandwich board is used, the six square feet is calculated on only one side <br />of the sign and not both. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if a portable sign that comes on a trailer and is four feet <br />high by eight feet wide, similar to one that had been sitting on the comer at County Road <br />E and Lexington Avenue preciously, would be permitted. <br /> <br />City Planner Beekman replied this type of sign is explicitly prohibited in the City's sign <br />code in all areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.