PCP 09-06-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 DRAFT 12 ams;ndcd bv the Council) be rctained wherever applicable to the revised development . proposal, notwithstandinLdcfeat of Resolution 05-45 bv a 3-2 maioritv in favor. Accordingly, our analysis at this time will deal with Conditions 3-6, 9, and 17 that were included in Rcsolution 05-45, now replaced in the Staff recommendation on Planning Case 06-23 by Conditions 6,7,22,24, and 25. Occupancv and Use. Conditions 6 and 7 deal with occupancy and use of each of the 23 units now proposed. Not more than one business shall be permitted to occupy anyone office condominium unit within the developmcnt, nor shall retail, restaurant, fast-food or residential uses be permitted, except retail use if incidental or accessory to the primary office use. We previously advocated such reslrictions and continue to do so, including their achievement through deed restrictions, covenants, or bylaw requirements. lJamline Avenuc Access, Resolution 05-45 defeated last year (by a Council votc of 3-2 in favor) included no Hamlinc A venue access, this having been deleted by an amendment adopted 4- I earlier in the meeting. This is still what we would prefer. However, if Hamline Avenue access is to be provided, we support the Staff recommended Conditions 24 and 26 in their entirety, including right-in and right-out access 9nly_wi!h_no 1efUyms, with minimum 30-foot radii on thc northwest and southwcst comers, and with appropriate signs placed prior to the road to the office developmcnt being opened up. . Siena2c. The wording on this subject presented to the Council last year allowed for one freestanding monument sign at the Highway 96 entrance, with each unit to have fifteen (15) square feet of signage including a 1 square foot address and name plaque adjacent to the main entry for the unit. End units corresponding to units I, 9, 10 and 18 in the currcnt proposed development could have a total of thirty (30) square feet of signagc but no more than fifteen (15) square feet to the north (facing Highway 96) and no more than fIfteen (15) square feet at the front of the units. However, after several councilmembers expressed dissatisfaction with this, the wording about individual units was amended unanimously to state "that the signage does not exceed 2 x 2 and this [to] come back to the Council for final approvaL" There was no mention in the resolution as amended of any variance for the units now numbered 1,9,10 and 18, nor any discussion whatsoever by the Council of a large sign facing Highway 96 on lhe north wall of units 19-23. Mr. Ebensteiner is quoted in the Council minutes as stating he decided to go along with 2 x 2 signs outside the doors. III vicw of all this, we strongly urge that apparent Council intent to allow each unit only 4 square feet of signage be retained in place of the 20 square feet stated in the first two bullct-point paragraphs ofthc Staff recommendation condition 25, and that the third and fourth bullet-point paragraphs rcgarding additional signage for units], 9, 10 and 18 and for units 19-23 be struck out. We support the intent of the final three bullet-point . paragraphs in recommended Condition 25. -- DRAFT --