04-25-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2016 7 Senior Planner Bachler suggested that the Planning Commission could direct staff to work with the applicant on the monument sign location prior to the item being reviewed by the City Council. Chair Thompson explained her concern with the sign placement was due to the traffic patterns along County Road E. Ms. Anderson indicated she has been working in retail architecture for the past 28 years. She commented that pylon or monument signs have not been used as entry or directional signs, but rather are used for advertising purposes. Commissioner Lambeth discussed how the proposed monument sign location would be confusing to passing traffic. Ms. Anderson stated the feedback she has received from the market was that there was more value in being visible from the intersection at Lexington Avenue than placing the monument sign at the property entrance. Commissioner Neururer explained that he drove this thoroughfare daily. He expressed concern with how traffic entering and exiting the site would impede traffic. Chair Thompson recommended staff work with the applicant on the monument sign placement prior to this item being reviewed by the City Council. Senior Planner Bachler reported that the Sign Code does allow for a smaller non-commercial auxiliary sign to be placed at the entrance to the site. He reviewed the location on the site plan where this auxiliary sign could be placed. Commissioner Bartel questioned if the Planning Commission had jurisdiction over sign placement. Senior Planner Bachler stated that sign placement and setback requirements were included in the Sign Code. However, because the applicant has requested a PUD for the property the City is able to negotiate certain aspects of the development as long as there is a rational basis for the imposed conditions. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated he would not be supporting this Planning Case due to the reduction in landscape coverage. He did not consider the upgraded stormwater management system to be a fair trade for the reduction in landscaping. Chair Thompson appreciated this comment. However, she stated there was no place for the water to be treated and explained the underground treatment system was the best option for the site. She understood there were challenges when updating these commercial properties in order to meet the City’s parking and water runoff requirements. She supported the proposed traffic flow through the site and believed the property was balanced. She recommended a more detailed letter from the City Engineer or the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding the stormwater plans be included for the City Council.