My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 08-28-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 08-28-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:43 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:10:50 AM
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.
/
165
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 />DRAFT - ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson stated he was opposed to Conditions 2, 3, and 6. He believed the . <br />signage should be as allowed for the under! ying zoning in that district and he saw no <br />reason why it should be different. He agreed that the drainage on the site had been <br />engineered and he did not believe that it was their job to do that. With respect to parking, <br />he did not see how they could eliminate the parking spaces without showing good reason <br />for doing so. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman noted <br />they eliminated the turn. <br /> <br />amendment 5 will also impact the daycarc center if <br /> <br /><.'d.' <br />Chair Sand noted the Commission was a recOInmendingbrfd~,:pnly and the Council could <br />0.... ':>".';,,', <br />chose to follow their recommendation or not followlllcir 'f~o!llmendation. He stated <br />Council had the final decision. . <br /> <br /><<i\ <br />Mr. Lchnhoff stated with amendment number two, they had a righttO"(l:monument sign <br />and noted they did allow multi-tenant signs as a part ofthe monument s;gp;,He asked if <br />lhis should be restricted. He stated as it was the applic~twas only proposing a building <br />sign with no lisling of each tenant, but it could be a multi-tenant sign in the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bezdicek recommended they vote on each-amendment separately. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve <br />Planning Case No. 06-023, Master PI~ned UnitJ.)<:yelopment & Preliminary Plat; Royal <br />Oaks Realty, Inc., 1440.- 1450 Wesl Highway 96,sU!iject to the thirty-one conditions as . <br />noted in staff s February 27, 2003, report: <br /> <br />Commissioner McClung Il1oved, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve <br />amendment to conditi~?ntil11ber 5 to read: The bylaws, covenants, deed restrictions, or <br />any similar documents shall include all of the restrictions including in the approved <br />Planned Unit DevelopIllenL These documents shall be subject to review by the City <br />Attorney and sha.ll.bc submitted prior to filing the Final Plan. <br /> <br />The motion carried un:.lnimousIy (7 -0). <br /> <br />Commissioner McClung moved to approve Amendment #2: Condition 25: Strike all <br />after "the following shall apply to all signage in the dcvclopment:" and include: <br />Bullet Point I: "One monument sign that does not exceed the sign requirements <br />of the Neighborhood Business Zone shall be permitted at the Highway 96 <br />entrance to the property." <br /> <br />Bullet Point 2: "Sign age shall be limited to four square foot signs adjacent to the <br />entrance of each unit, including a one-foot square address nameplate, and there be <br />no other signs applied to the exterior of the buildings." Motion failed for lack of a <br />second. <br /> <br />Motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> <br />DRt\Jl <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.