My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 01-27-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 01-27-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:08 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:34:02 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.
/
93
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 />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 8, 2003 <br /> <br />2' '. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Staff stated applicants were requesting Site Plan Review approval to accommodate a <br />drive-in bank at 1240 County Road E West. Staff reviewed their report dated December <br />20, 2002 and recommended approval of the Site Plan Review subject to conditions as <br />outlined in their report. <br /> <br />Commission Larson asked if there was a median to be proposed under number 8, or an <br />adjustment to the curb cut. Mr. Hellegers replied this was under the approval of the <br />County and the City Council had recommended a right out. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked where the pylon sign was being replaced by a monument sign. Mr. <br />Hellegers replied it was replacing the sign along Pine Tree Drive. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked if they were also proposing an anchor in addition to the requested signs. <br />Mr. Hellegers replied that was correct. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked if the symbol of the anchor was really another sign and now applicant <br />was really getting three signs, instead of two. Mr. Hellegers replied the Zoning Code was <br />silent on this particular item. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish stated in this particular instance, the City probably would not consider the <br />anchor as a sign because while this was the bank's logo, and it did not have Anchor Bank <br />written on}he anchor. He stated this could be considered as a site improvement. . <br /> <br />Comrnissi6ner Zimmerman stated the anchor was identification for the bank. Mr. Parrish <br />replied they could treat the anchor as a graphic sign if they wanted. <br />)~, <br /> <br />Commissibner Smithknecht asked how big the anchor was. <br /> <br />Steve Pa~tzel of Mohagen Architects, representing the owner, 1415 E. Wayzata <br />Boulevard, #200, Wayzata, MN, replied the anchor was approximately six feet tall. He <br />stated he did not believe this was a graphic sign, but instead was a sculptural piece. He <br />noted it would be installed in a nice manner with additional landscaping. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman stated he did not have an issue with the anchor, as long as it <br />was not placed along County Road E. He indicated if they wanted to place it somewhere <br />else on their property, he would not have a problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Paetzel clarified there would be no new site signage. He stated they would simply <br />reface the existing signs. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked if they were only proposing to add an anchor to the property. Mr. <br />Paetzel replied that was correct. <br /> <br />Commissioner Modesette asked if the sign on the building would meet Code . <br />requirements. Mr. Hellegers replied it would. <br /> <br />Commissioner Modesette agreed the anchor should not be along County Road E. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.