My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 03/08/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2005
>
Agenda - Council - 03/08/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 1:44:11 PM
Creation date
3/4/2005 2:01:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
03/08/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
293
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
Comlnunity Development DireCtor Trudgeon explained the City received an application fi'om <br />Leroy Signs, Inc. requesting a conditional use permit to exceed sign size restrictions for the NAU <br />Country Insurance Co. single occupant bUilding located at 7333 Sunwood Drive. State statute <br />requires notification of the public hearing to property owners within 350 feet of the subject <br />propm~ty. Staff notified property owners Within 350 feet of the subject property. <br /> <br />Community Development Director TrUdge°n explained the Town Center district sign <br />regulations, excluding the TC-2 ~subdistriCt, are much more restrictive for the general Business <br />and Enaployment districts. These regulations Were developed with the intention of applying them <br />to the core areas of the Town Center Where.there will be many multi-tenant buildings, with each <br />individual tenant having very limited frontage} The NAU County Insurance Co. building has <br />dimensions of 179 feet by 183 feet~ has frontage along three public roads, and is a single- <br />occupant building. It is located in the TC-3 zOning district; which restricts wall-mounted signs to <br />a maximum of five percent of the ground floor building fagade area or 24 square feet, whichever <br />is less. Furthermore, lettering, numbers, ;or graphics are restricted to a maximum height of 12 <br />inches. However, businesses with frontage on more than one public road are allowed the <br />permitted sign criteria for each street frontage, . He explained Leroy Signs Inc. is proposing to <br />install two wall-mounted signs, one on the front fagade of the building and one on the rear fagade <br />of the building. Leroy Signs Inc. is reqUesting an increase in square footage to 53.17 per sign, <br />with two-foot high letters, in order to have a proportionately sized sign on the front and back of <br />the building. The applicant haSstated that a~sign meeting the current restrictions look severely <br />disproportionate on such a large building. :Neither of the signs would project fi'om the wall more <br />than six inches. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon advised that the City has, in the past, granted <br />conditional use permits for signs larger than allowed under City Ordinances. The Plmming <br />Commission conducted a public :hearing regarding Leroy Signs request on February 3, 2005 and <br />there was no public input. However, there was some discussion regarding the appropriateness of <br />the proposed sign size. Due to the fact that thisis a large, single tenant building, staff believes <br />that the increased sign size is not °nly proPortionate to the building faCade but is also appropriate <br />in terms of scale. He advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request by <br />a 3~2 vote. Staff is also recommending apProval of the request to exceed the sign size <br />restrictions. <br /> <br />Councihnember Elvig noted the minutes .of the Planning Commission meeting should be <br />con'ccted to show Commissioner Brauer as absent. He questioned if this ordinance is workable in <br />the way it has been drafted. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon replied in the zeal to regulate, the City may be too <br />strict in some cases. Overall in this district :where there will be a number of multi-tenant <br />buildings staff wants to be careful. This caSe was looked at very specifically, given this is a <br />single tenant building. This is the only sign they Will have and is appropriate. He noted staff has <br />found the ordinance difficult to implement in practice. <br /> <br />City Council/February 22, 2005 <br /> page 8 of 31 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.