11-15-10 - Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—November 15, 2010 12 7.A. Arden Hall Planned Unit Development and Zoning Code Amendment (continued) Councilmember Holmes suggested deleting Finding of Fact 45 and#6. - Councilmember Holden stated these two findings do need to be included because they are accurate. Mayor Harpstcad stated that the two findings should be in the record. Councilmember Holmes suggested Finding of Fact #5 read "The proposal is in keeping with many of the principles of the Guiding Plan for the BT2 District due to the existing configuration of the site, although the proposal does not advance all the principle..." She asked if the phrase "due to the existing configuration of the site" should be removed. Councilmember Holmes removed her motion from the floor. Councilmember Holden removed her second to the motion. - MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to amend Finding of Fact #5 to read: "Although the proposal is in keeping with many of the principles of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, the proposal does not advance all of the principles for the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District due to the existing configuration of the site." And Finding of Fact #6 will be removed. The motion carried (4-1). Ayes: Mayor Harpstead, Councilmcmbcrs Holmes, Grant and Holden Nays: Councilmcmbcr McClung Councilmember Grant asked if the City would be interested in asking for a sign on the corner of - Lexington and County Road E or an easement at this location. Councilmember Holmes stated she felt the southwest corner would be a better Iocation and Wellington had already agreed to incorporate a gateway sign into their monument sign. Mayor Harpstead suggested this be included in the discussion when the lot is subdivided. Councilmember Grant asked if the City had rights to put a monument sign on the Wellington property on the southwest corner. City Planner Beekman stated there was not an easement for a gateway sign. The sign was to be located in the right-of-way and part of the agreement was they would pay for a portion of the sign and the City would pay the other portion. When the City was reviewing the subdivision for this property and the redevelopment of the lot, the Guiding Plan called for some kind of civic feature on this corner. It does not limit this to a gateway sign. The concept plan for the property does need to identify this requirement. Councilmember Grant asked if this was County right-of-way.