My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-11-09-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
05-11-09-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2024 12:07:27 AM
Creation date
7/16/2009 9:57:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
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.
/
30
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—May 11, 2009 16 <br /> the applicants and tenants are proposing this as a temporary solution until the <br /> redevelopment of the site takes place. At that time a permanent solution can be <br /> found and the sign standard adjustment would no longer be needed. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that Recommendation 6 stated that the sign <br /> standard adjustment shall expire upon the implementation of a new monument sign <br /> on the site or within two years. She asked which monument sign the <br /> recommendation was referencing because the first monument sign was going to be <br /> on the corner. <br /> City Planner Beekman stated that there is an assumption that when the <br /> redevelopment takes place the monument signs would be placed simultaneously. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked if this would then reference the sign on County <br /> Road E. <br /> City Planner Beekman stated when a permanent sign solution was placed then the <br /> temporary sign usage would end. <br /> Councilmember Holden stated that this recommendation should state the <br /> monument sign on County Road E. <br /> Councilmember McClung asked how much visibility a 6 square foot A-frame sign <br /> is going to get when the only placement for this sign is beyond the entrance. He <br /> also asked to verify that neon signs were against the City's sign code. <br /> City Planner Beekman stated that this was correct. <br /> Councilmember McClung asked if an acceptable condition for acceptance of this <br /> would be to stipulate that if Wellington or one of sits tenants places any additional <br /> sign then this agreement should be nullified. <br /> City Planner Beekman stated that this could be stated as a condition and it would <br /> be helpful to have more specific language referencing code compliance added to the <br /> agreement. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that he would suggest that if the City sites them <br /> for violating the code this would nullify the agreement. <br /> Councilmember Holmes stated that if this is an agreement among the tenants then <br /> it could state that the particular tenant who made the violation could not put up any <br /> additional signs. One violation should not nullify the agreement for all the tenants. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.