12-07-1988 PTRC Agenda-Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 2 CASE 87-26 (Cont'd) Probst explained if Council is interested there is an opportunity to declare this area a Tax Increment Financing District, which would have no effect on this development and would allow the City to capture that tax increment over the next ten years. Probst • stated it is his understanding that once building permits are issued the opportunity is lost. Tramm stated that no building permits for the project have been issued at this time and offered to discuss delaying the project with others in his company. There was discussion relative to the Council action to research declaring the area a development district; Malone advised that no formal action has been taken by the Council other than to direct staff to outline the steps of this process. Winiecki commented that the Council movement appears to be directed toward declaring the area a TIF District, however, it has never been formalized. She suggested Commission could request Council consider taking action at this time to declare the TIF district so that the increments are not lost. Commission concurred to request staff to outline the process and time-frame for declaring a TIF district and request Council consider expediting formal action on the process if the time-frame deems such action can be accomplished in coordination with this project. Bergly advised if the increments are not captured on the first unit constructed in this development it may be possible to obtain the increments on the remaining units. Probst moved, seconded by Malone, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #87-26, Final Plat of Edgewater Estates Second Addition, conditioned upon: 1) The Village Engineer approval of easements, and 2. The Village Attorney approval of Title, and, further that as part of this action Council waive time requirement of the 90 day filing period between Preliminary and Final Plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #88-35; SIGN Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of VARIANCES; BURGER 12-7-88, relative to the application for sign variances KING, LEXINGTON AVE. at the Burger King site on Lexington Avenue by Northland NORTHLAND CONST.MGMT. Construction Management. Bergly explained the signage plan submitted and reviewed the individual sign variance requests as outlined in his report. He stated height and area variances would be required for the free-standing business sign at the entrance, the "Menu-Board" sign for the drive-up service lane and the "Low-Clearance sign at the entrance to the drive-up service lane. Planner Bergly noted the directional signs do not require variances, however, only two signs are allowed by Ordinance and additional signs would require Council approval; one additional directional sign is proposed to achieve orderly movement of vehicles on the site and clearly direct patrons to their destination. The Planner reviewed considerations he outlined in his report for each of the signs: -Business Sign at entrance - The sign consists of three separate signs and • both height and area exceed requirements. The 8' x 8' Burger King sign apparently controls the size of the other two signs; if the overall sign is scaled back in height and area, the other two signs would be reduced in size and/or eliminated.