02-5-14-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION January 8, 20146 Commissioner Holewa welcomed Arden Village to Arden Hills. He was pleased with the renovations completed on the site. He wanted to see the City help this property and supported the proposed sign standard adjustment. Commissioner Thompson banner condition remain clean and that it be replaced if it becomes torn or weathered. Commissioner Bartel stated it was his opinion that approval of this request could set a precedent. However, this could be addressed through revisions to the Sign Code. Chair Larson agreed that setting a precedent could be dangerous; however, the requested signs would greatly increase visibility for Arden Village. Commissioner Holewa reiterated that the sign request, even though it was above the current sign standards, was temporary. Commissioner Scott moved and Commissioner Holewa seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-023 for a Sign Standard Adjustment at 1290 County Road F West based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the six (6) conditions in the January 8, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B.Planning Case 13-017; PUD Amendment; 1201 County Road E Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated TAT Properties, Inc. has requested a Planned Unit Development Amendment (2nd) to construct a 17,743 square foot retail building on the southeast corner of the property located at 1201 County Road E. Associate Planner Bachler reported that in December 2012, the City Council approved Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 1201 County Road E. This planning case allowed the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space. A Certificate of Occupancy for the building was issued in October 2013. The City Council later approved a Certificate of Completion for the E Street Flats project in November 2013, which acknowledged that the developer had completed certain site improvements as required by the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the approved Master PUD consists only of the redevelopment of the existing building on the property and the completion of site improvements. A previous land use application (PC #11-011) submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council in 2011 included a preliminary plat proposal that would have subdivided the property into two parcels. Approval for this land use application expired prior to the City taking action on Planning Case 12-019. Associate Planner Bachler commented the Development Agreement states that the property owner intends to develop the eastern two acres of the site into retail or other commercial uses and that any future development will require a separate application to the City. Also included in the Agreement is the provision that any significant changes to the approved plans require a review by