CC 08-28-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL -AUGUST 28, 2006 17 Councilmember Pellegrin stated he lived in a similar situation where a wooded area was being subdivided. He stated he had approved this subdivision, even though he would like to see it remain as it was, but he could not do that because the subdivision was the best thing for the City- He stated he supported this development and it was the right thing to do_ He agreed the signage needed to be reduced. He acknowledged change was never easy and it would not be accepted by everyone. He stated he had heard a lot of emotion, but not very many facts and he had to look at the facts. He believed the right-in, right-out was a good compromise for the traffic on Ham1ine Avenue. He stated no Councilmember would have any personal gain from this development and there was nothing further from the truth. He stated the Council had spent many hours on this development. He noted "one man's freedom, was another man's hardship" and they needed to do the greatest good for the entire community. Councilmember Grant stated he was reminded of a couple of other developments in the City (County Road E2 and Cleveland specifically) where the residents opposed the development. He stated the perceived amount of impact of traffic, environment, etc. was great. He stated the development had gone in and there had been no concerns about traffic and he had received positive comments regarding the development. He noted the fears were larger than the reality. He stated another development of great concern for the residents was off of County Road D and Cleveland. He stated once the development went in there was also no negative comments. He noted the perception of what was going to happen was far worse than the reality. He stated they needed to make their decision based on the best interest of the City. He indicated the property would be developed and would not remain open space. He stated they had to make a decision and it appeared to be a reasonable use of the property. He stated the question they needed to determine was how to make this happen in a reasonable manner. He stated he had issues with signage, as well as many other issues to discuss. Mayor Aplikowski stated she also had concerns that needed to be addressed. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Pellegrin seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 06-023; Master and Final Planned Unit Development & Preliminary, Plat Royal Oaks Realty, Inc., 1440 - 1450 West Highway 96 subject to the plans submitted and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended by the City CounciL Councilmember Grant stated there was too much signage on the project and it cheapened the development. He recommended signage of 10 inches x 8 feet. Mr. Black stated they were only asking for one sign per tenant. He noted if a building was occupied by one tenant, there would only be one sign_ Mayor Aplikowski stated she was having a problem with the 14" signage. She asked if the letters would have to be 14". Mr. Black responded if they had to go to smaller signage, they could reluctantly do that. Mayor Aplikowski asked if Councilmember Grant would be willing to allow them 12" letters. Councilmember Grant stated he believed 10" lettering across the parking lot was reasonable.