05-06-15-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for consideration: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to install a single tube of LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building on the property. 4. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. 5. Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 of the Sign Code does not permit service station canopies to be illuminated other than by lighting associated with approved signage. 6. The proposed accent lights would illuminate the canopy face beyond the illumination associated with the existing signs. 7. Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that direct glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. 8. The accent lights would create glare that would have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake 9. The proposed accents lights would be in conformance with the other requirements regarding exterior lighting within Section 1320.13 and Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code. 10. The proposal will not impact existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 11. The proposal will not affect noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 12. The proposed lighting would create glare visible from adjoining public streets and residential areas to the east and north of the property. 13. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 14. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 15. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 16. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. 17. Where the proposal is not in conformance with the Zoning Code and Sign Code the applicant has requested flexibility through the PUD process. 18. Based on the submitted plans and evaluation included in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the flexibility being requested through the PUD process would not be in the overall best interest of the community. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 6 of 8