PCP 09-06-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 DRAFT 19 . Amendmcnt #4: Condition #33 "Sidewalk Cushion. A one-foot cushion bc added under any sidewalk provided in the development." Amendment #5: Condition ti22: Strikc bullct point number I. Amendment #6: Condition #34 "Parking. The equivalent of 35 parking spaces shall be removed from the parking plan as proposed to be replaced by landscaping with trees subject to approval during final plat rcview." (This will provide 9.35 spaces per unit) Chair Sand asked on recommended Amendment #2 regarding sJgnage why Commissioner McClung was restricting this signage. Commissioner McClung responded at the July, 2005 Council meeting, this was a concern of Council and hc wanted to addrcss that concern, Commissioner Modesette statcd shc hesitatcd to add amendment #3 because drainage over land actually rcduced flooding and without analysis from thc City Enginccr, shc believcd they might be setting up a problem they intended to mitigate. Commissioner McClung noted his intent was to duplicate City Council on that condition. Commissioner Modesette statcd on the signagc issue she believed at some point in a development, signage was key to the success of thc business and succcss of a business was viable to a dcvcJopment and she believed at some point they could be pushingtoo far . by not allowing a business (0 be successfuL Commissioner Larson stated he was opposed to Conditions 2, 3, and 6. He believed the signage should be as allowed for the underlying zoning in that district and he saw no reason why it should be different. He agreed that the drainage on the site had been engineered and he did not believe that it was their job to do that. With respect to parking, he did not see how they could cJiminatc the parking spaces without showing good reason for doing so. Commissioner Zimmcrman noted amendment 5 will also impact the daycarc centcr if they e1iminatcd the turn. Chair Sand noted the Commission was a recommending body only and the CounciJ could chose to follow their recommendation or not follow their recommendation. He stated Council had the final decision. Mr. Lehnhoff stated with amendment numbcr two, they had a right to a monument sign and noted they did allow multi-tenant signs as a part of the monument sign. He asked if this should be rcstrictcd. He stated as i( was the applicant was only proposing a building sign with no listing of each tenant, but it could be a multi-tcnant sign in the futurc. Commissioncr Bczdicck recommended they vote on each amcndment scparatcJy. . -- DRAFT --