CC 08-28-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 16 . Mayor Aplikowski asked if the drainage was going to be appropriate. Ms. Giga responded it was common for Rice Creek Watershed District to request additional information after receiving the initial information. Mayor Aplikowski asked if there was some value to the "green" parking lots. Mr. Black responded there could be, but they have not looked at this option. He stated right now they were exceeding the open space requirement on this development and this was not a dense development. Councilmember Grant stated he believed a big issue was the signage and he supported four square foot signage. He stated he proposed they went back to the previous motion for four square foot of signage. Mr. Lehnhoff stated that the motion from last year permitted up to four square feet of signage, but this did not refer to the monument signage, which was 33 square feet. Mr. Black stated they had made a lot of compromises, but they could not have four square feet of signage if the City really wanted an office park in this location_ He indicated they needed the signage they were requesting. He stated they cannot and would not compromise on signage. He reviewed the signage they were proposing. He stated people who drove into these facilities, had to find the business they were looking for. He indicated they wanted a quality development. He noted the City Hall had signage facing Highway 96 on the building that exceeded four square feet. He did not believe their signage was out of character for what they had already approved in the corridor. . Councilmember Grant stated he believed the signage they were looking for was for cars traveling on Highway 96 at 50 mph, but he did not believe people in a parking lot needed those large of signs_ He noted 14" letters were too large . Councilmember Larson stated he was in favor ofthe project going forward. He noted they had a number of people who had expressed concern about this development going in their backyard, which he understood because he had a similar issue in his neighborhood_ He stated for him as a City Councilmember, he could not think of one major development that did not have a group of people objecting to the development because it did change their neighborhood, but he did not find the argument persuasive as to how he should vote on this property. He stated the City should not be in the business of land speculating and the City had always intended on developing this property. He indicated the City would realize approximately 2 million dollars from this project. He stated the City would also be receiving tax revenue on this property and to not develop the property would affect the entire City and not just this neighborhood. With respect to transportation issues, they have a proposal for aright-in, right -out on Hamline Avenue as well as a traffic study_ He stated he had to put his trust in the traffic engineers and their recommendations/decisions. He stated when he looked at this development, part of the value of the POD was that they could ask the developer to do things that under regular zoning they could not ask him to do. He believed this development was attractive and he had a difficult time understanding what argument was going to be made that they should not go forward with this development. He indicated he did believe there was too much signage on this development and agreed with Councilmember Grant. He suggested they increase the size of the monument sign on Highway 96. He stated the best way to make decisions was to use his best judgment and weigh all of the arguments and listen to what the people had to say and then cast a vote. He stated he did want to see less signage on the property.