CC 10-13-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Arden Hills Council 5 October 13, 1992 Councilmember Mahowald asked what the Planning Commission's recommendation was relative to a sprinkling system for the entire building. Iago stated that after recommendation from the Buil ding Inspector either a sprinkling system or fire wall must be installed. Applicant, Joe Commers, stated that he met with the Fire Marshall on the issue of fire protection and learned that the Uniform Building Code does not require a sprinkling system for the proposed building, but the Building Official, supported by the Uniform Building Code, is requi ring the installation of a firewall. He added that fi re hydrants are available within 50' from the proposed bank's drive- through teller lanes. Councilmember Malone commented that even if a fire wall were installed, a fire in the area above the wall could consume the building. The applicant stated he is aware of that possibility. A point was made that if that were to occur, since the building is not a residence, it is presumed that persons in the building would have plenty of time to escape. . Councilmember Malone asked for background on the matter of signs. The applicant stated that Mr. Mov i es applied for and obtained permits for two signs, and it is likely those permits were issued based upon the assumption that Mr. Movies was the only tenant of the buil ding. He stated that this was an honest mistake that was uncovered when the City began reviewing the site plan review. He commented to Council that if a different tenant had moved into the building, without making any changes to the building, it is likely the incorrect sign situation would not have been discovered. The applicant commented that one reason the sign variance is justified is that the driveway immediately to the east side of the building serves the purpose of a street in that it provides access to the adjacent shopping center; if the driveway were a street, the signage proposed would be allowed. In response to Council inquiry regarding construction schedule, the applicant stated that the building has scaffolding in place to begin demolition/construction as early as tomorrow if approval is granted this evening. . Council agreed to handle the sign variance issue after taking action on the development moratorium and site plan. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Hicks, to waive the Development Moratorium Ordinance for Phase II of this application. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). -------