08-02-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 8, 1989 Page 4 CASE #88-36 (Cont'd) 5. A front yard setback variance of 10 ft. will be required for the north edge of the parking lot along Cleveland Avenue. This is being requested due to a jog in the County Road E-2 ROW just in the area of the parking. • 6. The building exterior has been modified slightly within the same basic design theme. 7. A sign variance will be necessary due to the jog in the ROW along County Road E-2 and is being requested by the applicant. Planner Bergly stated the slope of the land prohibits placement of the building further back on the slope; it could be accomplished but would create a blank wall adjacent to the residential development to the east of the site. Bergly noted the potential option for placement of the parking lot to conform to current code requirements and discussed the fact this would place the parking area too close to the building; if the option were utilized, no variance would be required. The Planner referred to the sign drawing submitted and location proposed for placement of the sign; it was noted the sign proposed is below the minimum size and height requirements and is tastefully designed. He referred to the property line jog as a hardship for placement of the sign. Member Piotrowski requested the revised site plan be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Planner Bergly stated in this instance the request was forwarded directly to Council because the applicant had been delayed due to the Cleveland Avenue improvements. He commented Council could refer this matter to the Board of • Appeals if they so desire. Chairman Probst stated this application was approved for a larger development with no variances and he would prefer the smaller scale development placed on the site without variances. Hans Hagen explained that the slope of the land prohibited placement of the building further toward the rear of the site; the intent of placement is to maintain the natural environment at the south end of the site which is adjacent to residential development. Hagen requested Commission consider eliminating the stipulation which prohibits mechanical equipment on the roof. He displayed the building design to shield the rooftop equipment from view along County Road E-2 and the rear portion of the site. Member Martin commented that Arden Hills has large setback areas along several roadways in the City; was not opposed to the parking variance on the corner of the site. He noted a vehicle parked in this area would not prohibit visibility nor detract from the site i.n the same manner as placement of a building closer to the roadway. Member Ashbach was not opposed to the variances as requested; noted Hagen has made an effort to enhance the site development and the Planner had identified hardships due to the topography and unusual lot lines. • Member Piotrowski expressed opposition to the parking and sign variance requests. She suggested the plan could be revised to accommodate parking on the site. Hagen advised the sign could be placed in compliance with the code, however, he felt the sign as proposed (8 ft. x 3 ft. ) is quiet, reserved, sophisticated and indicative of the quality development in the City.