Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 3 <br /> <br />Staff was looking for concurrence from the Council to proceed with the installation of this <br />gateway sign. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden reported that she visited this intersection and believed that it was <br />already well-lit and she did not believe it was worth the extra expense to light the sign. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes expressed concern with the proposed reduced size of the sign. She <br />supported the sign being lit. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant didn’t believe the sign logo or City brand should be altered even though the sign <br />size was reduced. He suggested that the gateway sign be lit. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung opposed the gateway sign and its installation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Werner supported the proposed intersection for a lit gateway sign. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned if this gateway sign could be put in the ground yet this fall. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Maurer anticipated that the work could be done yet this fall. <br /> <br />The Council directed staff to bring this item for formal Council approval at the regular meeting on <br />October 13th. At this time, the majority of the Council agreed that plans should proceed for an <br />internally lit gateway sign at the intersection of Cleveland and County Road D, with the correct <br />tree location in the City logo. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant adjourned the special work session at 6:58 p.m. to a regular meeting of the City <br />Council with the understanding that the special work session would reconvene after the regular <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reconvened the special work session at 8:58 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />C. TCAAP Zoning [Chapters 6-7 & Definitions (Chapter 4)] <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the Council heard discussion from <br />residential developers at their work session on September 22, 2014. She requested City Council <br />feedback on Chapters 6 and 7, particularly with regards to setbacks, lot sizes, and other <br />development criteria. A spreadsheet comparing setbacks, building frontage, and building height <br />requirements across the districts was reviewed. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that based on City Council discussion at <br />previous meetings, Chapters 1-2 and 4-5 were currently being revised. Updated copies, as well as <br />the updated comment tracker, should be available for discussion at an upcoming work session. <br />Staff is working with the City and JDA Attorneys on revisions to Chapter 3 which will be <br />discussed by the City Council on October 13, 2014. <br />