CCP 03-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 15 Chair Baker stated it was agreed earlier that the issue of caliper inch will be addressed when the landscape plan is submitted. With regard to signage, that will also be addressed when the Final Plan is submitted, Mr, McClure stated it is their hope to take advantage of the freeway frontage and erect some type of signage to further their marketing effort, once approved by the Council. Ms. Chaput stated that was not her understanding and such a sign is not permitted in the Ordinance. Ms. Chaput stated staff intends to review the Sign Ordinance this year so she had suggested the applicant's sign request be considered after that review. However, now it has been indicated there is an immediate need, Mr. McClure stated he does not have the information yet on the size of sign and suggested they meet with staff to provide that information prior to a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Shardlow suggested they present their permanent sign package when the Final Plan is submitted, The Plarming Commission agreed, The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on their request for an advertisement sign prior to construction. The Plarming Commission agreed to strike the entire "Signage" section and only indicate: "Temporary leasing signs and marketing signs will be allowed as approved by staff and City Council." The Plarming Commission had no changes to the "Lighting" section. Chair Baker stated the City Attorney has indicated the Plarming Commission carmot have an open time period and the applicant has indicated that six months is not adequate, Mr. Shardlow asked when the land becomes zoned PUD under the Code, Ms, Chaput stated she asked the same question and the City Attorney indicated the land is not zoned PUD overlay district. Mr. Shardlow explained that in most communities, once you get concept approval, the land is zoned PUD, the developer is vested in the project, and ifthe Final Plan is consistent with the Concept Plan, it is approved by staff, He stated that the sunset provision of six months does not make a lot of sense to him since the City can hold hearings for rezoning at any time. Chair Baker suggested that a period of one year be considered and the applicant be allowed to request an extension, if needed, Mr. McClure reviewed the aspects that remain to be addressed and timelines needed from the point the tenant is identified until move in, He noted another issue is the winter season which can impact construction, Mr. McClure stated this must be a collaborative effort and he would hate to go through all that work and then be told in one year that it would not be extended, He stated that a year may seem like a long time but in a construction calendar, it is not a long time, He stated they do not want to pay taxes on a property that produces no income and are interested in moving forward but would suggest a longer time period.