2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 10 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 tor 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 foml of an upright panel about 3 x 5 with a light over it or the horizontal elongated "optional" panels ahout 2 x 10 shown on the building elevation sheet. A very similar development in Lakeville hy the same 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 specity that type and size of all sign (only) only for this development. Notwithstanding the staffs interpretation of how the square t()Otage of the tree standing entrance monument sign would he calculated, ifs the 30 wall signs and not the entrance sign that represent our concem. No. 12: Recommend submission ora revised lighting plan. As stated in our previous submission, we recommend elimination of the light pole and the southenunost 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 houndary of the development is in excess of requirements tor adjoining residential property. Comments on sections of the memorandum other than the 17 specific conditions: I) 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 A venue will be prohlematie 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 TratTic Impact Report, to ''Construct larger than required radius (50 foot radius iffeasiblc) on the northwest and southwest comers of the Hamline A venue/Karth Lake Circle/Site Access intersection to improve tranic t10w in and out of the site." No such radiuses arc shown on the plat, and in fact, there is a very large wood utility pole right at the northwest comer. 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. In our May 24 comments under "Drainage:' we questioned the applicanf s claim of "40.3% open space" and requested professional eonfimlation. As indicated in item . 4A on page 13, staff has calculated the landscape lot area to be closer to 33(Yo, about 5,000 square feet helow NB zoning requirements of 35% in view of the latter's exclusion of areas less than 10 feet in width or less than 500 square teet in area. Replacement of 15 parking spaces in three areas selected by statI' but not specifically identified would increase landscape lot area to at least 35%, still well below the