CCP 10-15-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 3 Chair Baker asked how far could the lettering on the water tower be seen. Mr. Cronin stated he did not believe it could be seen for more than 600 feet. The lettering would only be two feet high. Commissioner Erickson asked if they were limiting what could be put on the tower as far as coloring. Mr. Cronin replied the lettering would be black and this would be a part of the variance. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if antennas could be added to the water tower. Mr. Cronin stated they were limited to 75 feet and he believed the water tower was 130 feet, so they could not add antennas to the top, but they could possibly add them to the base. Mr. Riehle stated they intended the signage on the water tower be seen only within the campus and not from the freeway. Commissioner Erickson asked how big was the vision triangle. Mr. Cronin replied it would be 35 feet down the street and 25 feet to the interior of the property. Under the proposed Code, a single pole sign would be put in that area because that would not be a vision problem. Chair Baker stated the overall size of the campus at 90 acres and the amount of total frontage on the roads would be extenuating circumstances for granting this variance. Commissioner Sand stated his only concern was about the water tower sign because he did not see the hardship. He stated he did not see why they should get a benefit that nobody else has just because they had an unfunctionable water tower on the site. He stated he would like to see them come back to the City when they had their whole plan together, and if the water tower was then put into use they could look at this issue at that time. He also stated he believed they should take into consideration the letter received by the concerned resident. Therefore, he was opposed to the water tower signage, but did support the other two signs. Chair Baker stated he was originally opposed to the water tower signage, but after the discussion tonight, he no longer opposed to this long as they could not see water tower off site. Commissioner Zimmerman agreed with Chair Baker, and stated the water tower was not obtrusive and he believed that Guidant was a good asset for the City. He did not have a concern with the signage on the water tower. Chair Baker asked ifit would be a hardship for Guidant if they delayed painting the sign until they came back to the City with a full plan. Mr. Riehle replied the tower had already been rigged in anticipation for painting and the signage and if they waited, the cost would probably double. Commissioner Zimmerman stated now that the water tower was painted white, it looked very nice and was very unobtrusive.