CCP 10-15-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 2 secondary entrance to the traffic and did not need to be as large as the south side sign, which was facing Interstate 694. . Chair Baker asked if the Syntegra sign would be taken down. Mr. Riehle replied the sign would remain up until Syntegra's lease expired. Commissioner Sand asked who Syntegra was. Mr. Riehle replied it was the new name for Control Data and they needed the sign for their business entrance. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if the Syntegra sign was taken down, would Guidant want another Guidant sign put up in its place. Mr. Riehle replied at this time they did not anticipate they would need another sign. They anticipated the main entrance would be off of Lexington Avenue, while the Hamline Avenue entrance would be an employee entrance. Commissioner Sand asked ifthey were agreeable to the two conditions staff was recommending. Mr. Riehle replied they were. Chair Baker stated he was concerned there were going to be two signs on the same street. He also expressed concern regarding the water tower and asked ifthe water tower was in operation. Mr. Riehle stated they were currently discussing this. There was no planning to put the water tower back into use at this time, but as the facility expanded, it may be reactivated. Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. . Commissioner Erickson asked what the variances were that were being requested. Mr. Cronin replied the variance request was to allow additional free-standing signs. They were not asking for additional footage for the signs. Commissioner Erickson asked ifthere was any reason, why the Syntegra and Guidant signs could not be combined into one sign. Mr. Cronin stated Guidant had a certain forum for their signs that were very pleasing while Syntegra had a different forum. He stated staff did not see any downside to having two signs in this location. Chair Baker asked why wasn't the sign brought with a PUD request. Mr. Cronin replied Guidant wanted to guide people in off of Lexington Avenue with the signs and they did not have a full plan yet for the entire campus. Chair Baker asked if this would be setting a precedent. Mr. Cronin replied Guidant had sufficient frontage as well as this being a campus setting, he did not believe this would be setting a precedence. Chair Baker stated that by exploiting the water tower this might be considered an economic benefit and not a hardship. Mr. Cronin replied the water tower could not be seen from any road and only the people on the site would see it. There was no . advertising value to be gained from this.