Laserfiche WebLink
11. The proposal will not affect noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and <br />solid waste on the property. <br />12. The proposed lighting would create glare visible from adjoining public streets and residential <br />areas to the east and north of the property. <br />13. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. <br />14. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. <br />15. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on <br />neighboring properties. <br />16. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. <br />17. Where the proposal is not in conformance with the Zoning Code and Sign Code the applicant has <br />requested flexibility through the PUD process. <br />18. Based on the submitted plans and evaluation included in the staff report to the Planning <br />Commission, the flexibility being requested through the PUD process would not be in the overall <br />best interest of the community. Specifically to this point, the Council evaluation of the proposal has <br />determined that: <br /> a. Though the intensity of the light source would be mitigated if the dimmer module is <br />operated as suggested by the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the contrasting color and <br />extent of the light along the full length of all sides of both the canopy and building roof line <br />maximizes even moderated light levels visibility and distraction to neighboring residential properties. <br /> b. Though somewhat shielded by seasonal vegetation, site visits by council members and <br />testimony of residents support a determination that the lighting treatment as proposed will be easily <br />visible from residences from substantial distances, including across and along Round Lake and from <br />the manufactured home park to the north. <br /> c. The lighting as proposed serves no safety or operational benefit, but is merely for <br />corporate branding and advertising purposes. <br /> <br /> <br />DECISION <br /> <br />Based upon these findings and the Council’s knowledge of the subject property and community, <br />the proposed PUD Amendment as detailed in the record for the Property located at 1920 West <br />Highway 96 is hereby denied. <br /> <br /> <br /> ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this 8th day of June, 2015. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> <br /> <br /> BY: ______________________________ <br /> David Grant, Its Mayor <br />ATTEST: <br /> <br />_______________________________ <br />Patrick Klaers, Its City Administrator <br /> <br />