04-25-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2016 8 Commissioner Bartel supported this suggestion. He understood Commissioner Zimmerman’s concerns but wanted to see the site improved to manage the water runoff from its current situation. Commissioner Jones did not want to give up grass and trees either, but knew the proposed system was the best option for the property. His biggest concern for the site was the location of the monument sign. Commissioner Neururer asked if the sign setbacks took into account the larger size of the sign. Senior Planner Bachler commented that the setback requirements applied to all free standing signs and do not take into account the size of the sign. Commissioner Neururer supported the underground treatment and management of the water runoff for this property. Mayor Grant discussed the stormwater management system being used at Cub Foods. He requested the Planning Commission be clear about their concerns regarding the monument sign due to the fact this was a PUD. Commissioner Bartel recommended the City Council evaluate the monument sign location given the fact the City was willing to be lenient on the sign size. Chair Thompson reviewed the proposed conditions from staff in detail with the Commission. She noted Condition 5 required the applicant to have the correct permits from the Rice Creek Watershed District. She noted that Condition 9 addresses the monument sign. She suggested this condition be amended to require the sign to meet the permitted requirements and that the sign placement be worked on by staff. Commissioner Lambeth moved and Commissioner Bartel seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16-003 for a Master and Final PUD at 1160 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the April 6, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bartel questioned if the Commission should add Condition 11 regarding the sign placement or reword Condition 9. Senior Planner Bachler recommended Condition 9 be restated versus Condition 11 being added. He understood staff was to work with the applicant to look at the proposed monument sign and evaluate other locations for the sign. He indicated the Planning Commission would consider supporting a larger sign if the proper location for the sign was found. Commissioner Lambeth accepted this friendly amendment to his motion. Commissioner Bartel also accepted this friendly amendment to the motion. Chair Thompson appreciated all of the work that has been done by the applicant on this building.