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

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, December 7, 1988 Page 6 CASE #88-35 (Cont'd) Malone moved, seconded by Probst, that Commission recommend to Council denial of the requested variances for the free-standing Business Sign, Case #88-35, based on the fact there is no identifiable hardship in this case, the developer of the site was specifically • advised at the Commission meeting held June 1, 1988, that the Commission approval of the site plan did not imply approval of sign variance requests, and this situation does not warrant the requested variances. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) CASE #88-36, SITE Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 12-7-88, relative PLAN REVIEW, HANS to the application for a Site Plan Review for Hans Hagen HAGEN CORP. HDQTRS, Homes Corporate Headquarters, located on County Road E-2 CO. RD. E-2 & and Cleveland Avenue. CLEVELAND AVE. Bergly explained the applicant is requesting approval for an 8,000 sq. ft. office building to be used as the corporate headquarters of a land development business. He stated the site is actually in two parts and the applicant owns both parcels of land; he noted it is a very attractive building site. The Planner stated the building proposed would be one-story facing Cleveland and County Road E-2 and two-stories facing the creek. The building would be mostly glass exposure on the front and rear of the building. Bergly advised all of the Ordinance requirements are met in terms of setback, parking and open space; the site is proposed at a low intensity of development. He stated access drives are proposed from both abutting streets. Bergly noted no specific signs are proposed at this time with the exception of one designated for a "future sign" location. He pointed out the sign as shown • would be in violation of the Ordinance as it does not meet front yard setback requirements. He explained the site is large and there are alternatives for the sign location which would not require a variance. The Planner advised the Village Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and finds no problems with it. Bergly stated the grading plan has been submitted to the RCWD and it is his understanding there have been no problems identified. Bergly advised there is currently no sanitary sewer service provided to the site due to topographic and elevation conditions. He explained sanitary sewer service is provided near the intersection of County Road E-2 and New Brighton Road, however, to service this area would require lift stations. Bergly explained the Engineer is studying the feasibility of providing sewer service to this area and the land immediately south of the site, as both are affected by the same topographic conditions. Bergly discussed the landscaping plan submitted and noted it would be more appropriate to consider a similar treatment along the frontage of the entire site by adding a second row or increasing the number of Norway Pines and substituting a more densely structured conifer. He explained there may be some problems with the proposed Pin Oaks shown on the plan, due to their growth habit, and suggested Red Oaks be substituted. It was also recommended the sod around the river rock planting beds adjacent to the entrance walk may be difficult to maintain and suggested expanding the beds to meet the curb line or removing them a suitable distance from the curb to allow for easy mowing and edging. Bergly suggested the removal of the Thornless Hawthorns from the front of the building and along the parking lot and substituting the cost of these small trees with more substantial plantings along the abutting streets.