CCP 03-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 8 with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the June 14, 2001 date. However, if the City denies the petitioner's request, "", it must state in writing the reason for the denial at the . time that it denies the request." Ms, Chaput presented the Commission's options for consideration of this application and advised that Staff recommends approval of a Master Planned Unit Development ofthe properties located in the Northeast quadrant ofI-694 and I-35W, with the 12 conditions as outlined in the staff report revising Condition #12 to extend the time line and adding Condition 13 to indicate: 13, Approval of the Master Plan is contingent on the Applicant's acquisition of all properties shown in the proposal. John Shardlow, Dalllgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc" consulting planner representing the applicant, introduced the design team in attendance and thanked Ms, Chaput for her assistance in review and recommendations on this project. He stated the issues have been well summarized and they take exception with none of the comments or recommended conditions, Mr. Shardlow stated they have identified the maximum development area, building site, parking area, points of access, and larger permanent open spaces, He stated they have prepared two site plans identifying the development area showing the same elements, He explained that one diagram shows the scope of maximum development and the other shows the scope of mid-range development. Mr. Shardlow reviewed the amended design standards dated March 7, 2001 and advised of the changes made since the February, 2001, version, . With regard to signage, Mr. Shardlow stated he is unsure they will be able to write sign design standards until the exact project has been identified. He reviewed their past discussion about having a sign barmer on the building and desire to have the ability to have a proj ect identification sign limited to the building or single anchor tenant. Mr. Shardlow read the language they have added to Section 2A. He stated they would like to defer the issue of signage until the project is identified and they are in a better position to know what the needs are, Mr. Shardlow read added section 2K on Page 9 indicating: "It is not the intent of these design standards to anticipate and define all aspects of the project identification signage but rather to highlight the key issues related to the proposed scale of the development. The size, location and design of identification signs for single story multi-tenant buildings in this development shall be determined at a later time through the review and development of a comprehensive sign standard," With regard to landscaping, Mr. Shardlow stated they serve as planners to some area communities and provide recommendations on landscaping, In that work, they have found it to be difficult to find five inch caliper trees, He advised that due to the low survivability of transplanted large sized trees, landscapers are also recommending 2 two-inch caliper trees be planted instead of a larger sized tree, Chair Baker requested an explanation of the reason two plans are being presented, Mr. Shardlow explained that with the Master Plan requirements, the developer would come in with a defined . plan. However with this project, property acquisition and tenant identification is still on-going, In order to be able to go forward with negotiations on financing and tenants, a project needs to be defined. Thus, they have presented a Master Planned Unit Development (PUD). He explained