07-11-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1, 2005 10 two three-unit buildings could be occupied by what would effectively be one retail business. No.6: Points out that restaurants could occupy space within the development with a Special Use Permit. As with No.5 above, ifretail and restaurant uses are prohibited by a provision in the POD document, as we advocate, this condition is irrelevant. No.7: Prohibits residential use of any of the units in the proposed development. We agree with this condition. No.9: Recommends establishment of a comprehensive sign plan for the development. As pointed out in our previous comments dated May 24, we regard 30 square feet of wall sign permit unit as excessive, whether in the form of an upright panel about 3 x 5 with a light over it or the horizontal elongated "optional" panels about 2 x 10 shown on the building elevation sheet. A very similar development in Lakeville by the smne company with substantially identical building elevations uses much more discrete wall signs, per the photographs we have submitted. If this works in Lakeville, it can work in Arden Hills. We strongly recommend that the Planning Commission specify that type and size of all sign (only) only for this development. Notwithstanding the staffs interpretation of how the square footage of the free standing entrance monument sign would be calculated, it's the 30 wall signs and not the entrance sign that represent our concern. No. 12: Recommend submission of a revised lighting plan. As stated in our previous submission, we recommend elimination of the light pole and the southernmost three or more parking stalls adjacent to lot 20, which is the closest to residences at 1389 and 1390 Arden View Drive. As pointed out on page 12, the lighting proposed along the south boundary of the development is in excess of requirements for adjoining residential property. Comments on sections of the memorandum other than the 17 specific conditions: 1) Access. As pointed out in the Plan Review Comments under item "0" on page 13, and notwithstanding the equivocal approval implied in the traffic study, access to the development from Hamline Avenue will be problematic and will contribute to congestion already existing as times south of Highway 96 at the Arden View Drive entrance. We direct the attention of Planning Commission members to the recommendation on page 15 of Attachment 4b-3, the Traffic Impact Report, to "Construct larger than required radius (50 foot radius if feasible) on the northwest and southwest comers of the Hamline Avenue/Karth Lake Circle/Site Access intersection to improve traffic flow in and out of the site." No such radiuses are shown on the plat, and in fact, there is a very large wood utility pole right at the northwest corneL Among other things, we urge the Planning Commission to require the plat to show such radiuses and that they be constructed. 2) Landscape lot area.