My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-15-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 10-15-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:43 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:37:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Chair Baker asked how far could the lettering on the water tower be seen. Mr. Cronin <br />stated he did not believe it could be seen for more than 600 feet. The lettering would <br />only be two feet high. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson asked if they were limiting what could be put on the tower as far <br />as coloring. Mr. Cronin replied the lettering would be black and this would be a part of <br />the variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if antennas could be added to the water tower. Mr. <br />Cronin stated they were limited to 75 feet and he believed the water tower was 130 feet, <br />so they could not add antennas to the top, but they could possibly add them to the base. <br /> <br />Mr. Riehle stated they intended the signage on the water tower be seen only within the <br />campus and not from the freeway. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson asked how big was the vision triangle. Mr. Cronin replied it <br />would be 35 feet down the street and 25 feet to the interior of the property. Under the <br />proposed Code, a single pole sign would be put in that area because that would not be a <br />vision problem. <br /> <br />Chair Baker stated the overall size of the campus at 90 acres and the amount of total <br />frontage on the roads would be extenuating circumstances for granting this variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated his only concern was about the water tower sign because he <br />did not see the hardship. He stated he did not see why they should get a benefit that <br />nobody else has just because they had an unfunctionable water tower on the site. He <br />stated he would like to see them come back to the City when they had their whole plan <br />together, and if the water tower was then put into use they could look at this issue at that <br />time. He also stated he believed they should take into consideration the letter received by <br />the concerned resident. Therefore, he was opposed to the water tower signage, but did <br />support the other two signs. <br /> <br />Chair Baker stated he was originally opposed to the water tower signage, but after the <br />discussion tonight, he no longer opposed to this long as they could not see water tower <br />off site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman agreed with Chair Baker, and stated the water tower was not <br />obtrusive and he believed that Guidant was a good asset for the City. He did not have a <br />concern with the signage on the water tower. <br /> <br />Chair Baker asked ifit would be a hardship for Guidant if they delayed painting the sign <br />until they came back to the City with a full plan. Mr. Riehle replied the tower had <br />already been rigged in anticipation for painting and the signage and if they waited, the <br />cost would probably double. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated now that the water tower was painted white, it looked <br />very nice and was very unobtrusive. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.