04-25-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—APRIL 25, 2016 7 9. The proposed Master and Final PUD is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City's Sign Code. The applicant has requested flexibility to install a monument sign that exceeds the height, sign copy area, and total sign area requirements for Sign District 4. 10. The proposed Master and Final PUD is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 11. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City's regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City's Zoning or Sign Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 12. The proposed Master and Final PUD is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Senior Planner Bachler stated that the Planning Commission was supportive of the request to reduce landscape coverage on the property to 14.6 percent. The Commissioners discussed the challenges associated with redeveloping commercial properties in order to provide sufficient parking and meet RCWD requirements for stormwater management. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed subsurface basin and treatment system would be an improvement to the existing conditions on the site and beneficial to the City. Senior Planner Bachler indicated that the Planning Commission was concerned that the location of the monument sign on the opposite side of the property from where the driveway is located could result in confusion for drivers. Several of the Commissioners did not support the request for a larger sign. The applicant noted that the main purpose of the sign was to provide advertising for the building tenants and not to indicate the entrance to the site. Senior Planner Bachler noted that as a condition of their recommendation for approval, the Planning Commission directed staff to evaluate the location and size of the monument sign with the applicant prior to City Council review. The applicant has provided an addendum to the project narrative describing this evaluation process and an alternative location for the sign along the eastern edge of the entrance drive. To address their concerns about the visibility of the sign from Lexington Avenue, the applicant believes that the sign height and size in the original proposal is necessary. Staff is requesting that the City Council review the proposal and make a final determination regarding the location and size of the monument sign in their motion language. Senior Planner Bachler explained that the Planning Commission recommends approval (6-1, Zimmerman) of Planning Case 16-003 for a Master and Final PUD at 1160 County Road E West, based on the Findings of Fact and the submitted plans in the April 25, 2016, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following nine(9) conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 2. The Developer shall obtain the required development permits within one year of the approval date or the approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date.