Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 04-03-2002 MINUTES CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA . PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2002 7:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER Chair Sand called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m ROLL CALL Present were Chair David Sand, Commissioners Ken Bezdicek, Terri Duchencs, Therese Galatowitsch, Brad Lemberg, Megan Rickc, and Clayton Zimmennan, Absent: :-lone. Also present were Councilmember Beverly Aphkowski, City Planner Aaron Parrish, and Recording Secretary Kathleen Altman. SWEARING IN OF NEW PLA:'<:'<ING COMMISSION MEMBERS Councilmember Aplikowski swore in Commissioners Bezdicek, Lemberg, and Ricke to thc . Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF MI:'<UTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON March 6, 2002. Commissioner Lemberg noted on page 2, last paragraph, change Chair Galatowitsch to Commissioner Galatowitsch and on page 3, first paragraph change Chair Zimmerman to Commissioner Zimmerman. Commissioncr Zimmennan moved, seconded by COlllmissioner Ga1atowitsch to approve the March 6, 2002 minutes as amended. The motion c8nied unanimously (7-0). CASE #02-03 - 4410 NORTH SNELLING, MINOR SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:37 p,lll. Staffreviewed their rep0l1 dated March 21,2002. Staffreeommended approval of the request based on thc findings therein. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired as to the amount of the park dedication fee. Mr. Parrish stated one indicator would be by an independent appraisal. He indicated from previous appraisals, it appearcd the fee would be around $4,000.00. . Commissioner Ricke asked irthcre was a park dedication f"ec assessed against the lot wben they were combined the Erst time. Mr. Parrish stated he believed that was probably divided prior to incorporation of the City, so a fec was probably not paid. -- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 2 . Dorothy McClung, gave a history of tbe property. She stated there were no fees paid for park dedication at the time the lots were combined. She stat cd the question was whether a family split of this kind should be subject to a park dedication She stated this should not be subject to a park dedication and this would be an issue that was brought up with the City Council. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Duchenes asked ifthey were asking for a recommendation on the park dedication fee. Mr. Parrish stated this was a Council decision. Commissioner Zimmennan stated this was a family gift and it was not generating a profit for anyone, so it was his feeling we should not expect a park dedication in this case. Mr. Parrish stated the purpose of the park dcdication fee was to essentially provide some kind of a contribution relativc to the improvemcnt of the park system. He stated when lots were divided, it was anticipated that a homc would be built and that homc would generatc usage of the parks. Hc stated the park dedication fee was put into a fund that was used only lor park improvements. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if there would be a homc built on this parcel. Mr. Parrish rcplied that was the intention. . Councilmcmber Ricke asked ifthc home being proposed for the lot were sold to a non- family mcmber at some time in the future, would the property thcn be subject to a park dedication fcc, Mr. Pan-ish replied thc property would not be subjcct to the fee. He stated paTk dedication fees only applied when lots werc subdivided. Commissioner Ricke moved, scconded by Commissioner Duchenes, to approve Case #02-03, Francis Podlasek, 4410 North Snelling Minor Subdivision based on the following findings, and with the following conditions: 1. The application is ablc to meet the minimum requiremcnts of Chaptcr 11 of City Code for a minor subdivision of property. 2_ Thc dedication of a (12) foot side easemcnt centered on the comlllon lot line for utilities to the city. 3, A registered land survey shall be recorded with Ramsey County within sixty days of approval from thc City Council; and 4. Following recording with Ramsey County, the applicant will provide evidence 01' recording to the City of Arden Hills along with a copy of the registered land survcy. . 5_ Payrnent of the appropriate park dedication fee as detelmincd by an independent appraisal provided by the applicant. The motion calTied (5-2) (Chair Sand and Commissioner Zimmennan votcd nay), ARDEN H1LLS PLANNING CO.Y1MISSION - APRIL 3,2002 3 . CASE #02-06 - PILGRIM HOUSE UNITARIAN CHURCH, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m, Staff rcviewed their report of March 28, 2002 and recommended approval lor the reasons contained thercin. Commissioner 7immern1an asked who the applicant was. He asked if it was Ms. Carlson, who was renting space from the church, or was the Church rUlming the daycare. Mr. Parrish replied Special Use Pernlits were provided to the property and it was incumbent upon thc property owner to have a Special Use Pennit for that special use. He stated Ms. Carlson would be leasing spacc from the Church. Commissioner Zimmerman pointed out tbis was an R-1 residcntial neighborhood, in which a church was allowed to run a day care; and in a R-1 residential districttherc was a limit of 10 children, He stated thc Code did not spccify if a church was allowed to run a daycare. Mr. Parrish replied a Special Use Pel1l1it ran with the property, alld if Ms. Carlson ceased to run the daycare facility that Special Use Permit would still be in place and the Church would still bc able to run a daycare at the Church. Commissioner Zimmel1l1an bclieved that renting out the property was not in compliance with thc regulations. Mr. PatTish stated the proper applicant was Pilgrim House. He . indicated thc letter from Ms. Carlson outlined the operation, but Pilgrim House was thc applicant. Chair Sand agreed with Commissioner Zimmerman that a tenant should not be the applicant, Mr. Panisb showcd the Commission the application and stated Pilgrim House had signed the application, Chair Sand requested in the future applications attached to the materials given to the Commission, Commissioner Ricke asked if thc applicable County and State liccnsing regulations for daycarc facilities would pemlit up to twenty childrcn, would staff still recommend IS children. Mr. Parrish replied there was no clearly delincd numbers in the Ordinance and he took the higher of the two numbers that were refened to in the application. He stated it was up to the Planning Commission to detennine what number of children are appropriate in this situation. Commissioner Ricke asked if thcrc was something staff based its recommendations that 15 children was the maximum amonnt of children for the daycare facility as opposcd to 20 childrcn. Mr. Panish replied there was not. Commissioner Lemberg asked if there were any recommendations from staff regarding . fencing around the proposed daycare facility, Mr. Parrish replied the Ordinance did not require a daycare to be enclosed by a fence, but he noted this in the memorandnm for the Commissioners' consideration, and he believed the County and State licensing authorities may havc some say regarding fencing. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 4 . Stewart Haglund, 1 I91 Karth Lake Drive, stated he opposed this proposal. He indicatcd while Pilgrim House had always been a good neighbor, when they had asked for expansion a few ycars ago, the neighbors did not rcalize that this new expansion would be used for a daycare. He stated all of his neighbors, as well as himsclf, were retired and intended on staying in their homes and he stated when there were children in the area, therc would be a lot of noise. He expressed concern about the hours of operation, especial1y with it starting at 6:00 a.m, He stated daycares were a commercial business and he stated this area was not zoned for a commercial business. Hc stated he opposed a commercial business in his backyard. He expressed concern about this eventually being a full-time daycare at some point in the future and the Church moving to a different facility. He asked the Commission to consider thcse concerns. Donald Kelley, 1181 Karth Lake Drive, stated he opposed this proposal for thc same reasons as previously expressed. He indicated the reason a daycare was in existence was to make money and he believed this was a commercial business and a commercial busincss should not be in a rcsidential area, He stated he was concerned about fencing as wel1 as tbe noise issues previously noted. Jane Hoffmeister, 1201 Karth Lake Drive, stated she opposed this proposal for the same reasons as previously statcd, She indicated the way the Church property was laid out was such that their proposcd play area would be in her backyard, She stated it was a very narrow area between their parking lot and hcr backyard. She expressed concern about the number of children and thc noise that would occur. Sbe stated fencing was a very big . issue and a liability issue if children were injured in her yard. She indicated having a daycare facility of this size, would have an affect on their property values. She stated this would be a detriment for anyone interestcd in purchasing the property in the futLlTe. She urgcd the Commission to consider these conccrns as they made their decision. Ann Lima, Pilgrim lIouse, stated they responded to this request to have a daycare center because they thought they would bc providing a public service to the cOlllmunity. She stated Ms. Carlson would pay $400.00 rent per month. She indicatcd they did not have an idea of how many children would be in the space, whether it be 12 or 20. She stated she could understand what the neighbors concerns were and could sympathize wi th those conccrns. However, she indicated the cbildrcn would not be out much during the day and they would always be supervised. She stated the hours of operation of the daycare would be from 7:15 a,m. through 5:30 p.m. She stated there would also he minimal traffic involved. She stated shc did not believe it would be as bad of a proposal as the neighbors belicvcd it was, Sharon Lane, Lino Lakes, statcd the Church was only used a couple of hours on Sundays, and shc stated she believed most churches had things going on during the week also. She indicated she did not belicvc this was an unreasonable request. She stated the Church tried to bc a good neighbor and she believed this wonld be a win-win situation, Commissioner Zilllmerman asked if this was going to be a revenue generator for the . Church. Ms. Lane replied this was one of the intents, as well as using a building that was not used cxcept on the weekcnds. Commissioncr GaIatowitsch askcd the ages of the children that vvould bc in the daycarc facility. Ms, Lima replied tbe agcs would be 33 months to the beginning of Kindergarten. ARDEN HILLS PLANNI-'lG COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 5 . Julie Carlson, 67 Pine Drive, Shorevicw, stated she wanted to start her own daycare and she' had been looking for a place where she could move some of the present children in the facility where she worked, which was closing in June. She stated she did not know of the kind of neighbors there werc in the neighborhood, alld stated she understood their concerns. Howcver, she stated her daycare would be a very small daycare, She stated a lot of the children were there on a part-timc basis. She did not believe she would have 20 children at anytime in the near future. She indicated for the present time, she would be happy with a smaller enrollment. She stated if she wanted to grow into a large facility, she would move to a larger facility. She stated all of the children would be supervised. She indicated they are always with the children and the children were ncver left alone. She stated during colder months, they would only be oLltside approximately 45 minutes after lunch. During thc summer they would be outside more, but she was willing to work with the neighbors regarding this. She stated she was willing to address any issues that came up. She indicated right now nobody used the facility Monday through Friday and she believed it was a shame for a nice building to not bc used. She stated she had a structured program and the children would not be running around. There would be no children of school age in the daycare facility_ Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Chair Sand askcd if the application had been for a daycare center accommodating 10 or . less, they would not have needed the Special Use Pemlit. Mr. Panish rcplied that was COlTect. Chair Sand asked if this operation would function with 10 or less children, Mr. Parrish stated the intcnt was to run a daycarc in which there would be 12 to 15 children. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he interpreted the zoning regulations differently than staff. He indicated daycares applied to a residential facility, not a church, He stated the Church had a Special Usc Permit to operate a house of worship in a residential area, A daycarc would be an accessory use of a Special Use Pennit. He expressed concern about this daycarc facility being leased, and stated he belicved this was a nonconfomling use. Chair Sand asked if this was an accessory to a special use or was it a nonconfonning special use, Mr. Parrish explained staff s Opll1l0n regarding special use and nonconforming special use. Commissioner Duchenes asked if any of the other churches in the City had daycares and what conditions, if any, they had on thcir uses, Mr. Parrish replied he had not researched this particular issue, but he did not believe there were any other churches that had davcares in the Citv. ~ - Commissioner Duchenes asked whether the plan was to usc the existing play area or to relocatc it. Mr. Parrish stated at this point, applicant had not indicated they would be . making any changes to the play arca, Commissioner Galatowitsch asked what the existing play equipment consisted of. Mr. Parrisb replied it was a wooden play set. ARDEN IIILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 6 . Commissioner Galatowitseh asked when thc expansion was made a few years ago, was there any request for landscaping to be added to the back of the lot. Mr. Parrish replied that was not a condition of the approval. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked what existed there now as far as landscaping. Stewart Haglund replied there was some landscape batTier there, but thc landscaping was thin and spotty. Mr. Parrish replied if the intent was to make the land use more compatible witb the existing area, the Commission could reqLLest that additional landscaping be added and the play area be fenced in. Commissioner Zimmennan moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to deny Planning Case #02-06, Pilgrim House Unitarian Church, Special Use Permit Application based on the rationale that it was an accessory operation that would be allowed if the Church was rulming the dayeare, but not when a commercial daycare facility was being run. The motion calTied (4-3) (Commissioners Ricke, Galatowitseh, Duchcnes). CASE #02-05 - GUJDANT SITE PLAN REVIEW/v ARIANCE REQUEST - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Sand opened thc public hearing at 8:31p.m, . Staff reviewed their report of March 28, 2002 recommended approval for the reasons contained therein, Commissioner Lemberg leflthe meeting at 8:32 p.m. and rcturned at 8:36 p.m. Pat Kern, 1230 Wyncrest Comt, stated he was 400 feet nortb of the Guidant parking lot. He stated he was not against them building the training facility, but he was against the variances they were requesting. He expressed conccrn about the height of the building, He requestcd the building stay at the height of all of thc rest of the buildings. He expressed concem about the landscape. Hc stated he liked that Guidant was so well landscaped. He also exprcssed concern about thc skyway over Fernwood. Darrel Horsemen, 1250 Wynridgc Drive, stated he was northwest of the water tower on the corner. lIe stated he was at the neighborhood meeting in March and expresscd concern about VariallCeS being grantcd at this point. He expressed concern about traJ1ic now in the arca. Gene Scales, corncr of Floral Drive and James Circle, thanked the City Planner for the information they had requcsted. lIe expressed the same concerns expressed by both the rcsidents here tonight as well as at the previous mccting. He expresscd concern about the traffic increase, lIe stated he was opposed to the granting of the variance. He statcd . Guidant was a good cOlvorate citizen and had taken good care of thc property, bLLt hc bclicvcd thc overall agenda of the company might change depending upon if they could build what thcy wanted to build on that property, He asked the Planning Commission and tbe City Council to take a good look of the overall plan. He stated issues that were brought forward at the previous meeting had not been addressed, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMylISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 7 . Bill Frank, 1228 Wynridge Drive, stated he did not have an opposition to what was being proposed if it stood on its own. He stated there was reasonablc planning effort involved and this was reasonable. He stated, however, i I' this were a part of the Master Plan, he would havc objections to it. He stated vacating FeTIlwood was a problem and this was an Lmacceptable approach to the development of the whole site. He stated hc understood wbat they were doing and he had no objection to what they werc proposing tonight, but if this was a "domino" {or many other approvals that are going to lollow, then it should stop here, but if this approval can stand alone, tben it should be approved. Chair Sand invited applicant to make comment. Jolm Larson and Judd Brasch, RSP Architects, presented Guidant's proposal. They indicated many of the issues the residents had brought up at the prcvious meeting wcre currently being worked on. Commissioner Lcmberg asked wbat was Guidant's timeframe for the future administrative bLlilding. Mr. Larson replicd within a four to six year time pcriod, depending on approval of a PUD. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he understood the topography of the land and this was what causcd the building to be 52 fcct tall. However, he stated the rcason for the . variance request was for the stairwell to access the skyway. Mr. Larson and Mr. Brasch replied that was corrcct. Commissioner Zimmerman stated if they did not need the stairwcll, they would not need the vmiance. Mr. Larson replicd the stailwell would be used for othcr purposes as well. Mr. PalTish stated the skyway was a part of this request and this was represcnted on the site plan, The condition was that Fernwood be vacated and replatted or some other anangement be made with thc City so they could pass over the City's right-of-way. He stated this skyway would be built in conjunction with the building. Mr. Larson stated thc building and skyway was a way of linking tbe buildings and the ease of moving employees over Femwood Avenue in a controlled environmcnt, which was very important for Guidant' s business opcration, Commissioner Ricke asked i I' othcr designs had bccn looked at, such as a tumlel instead 01' a skyway. .Ylr. Brasch replied thcy had looked at this, but it madc sense to have a skyway because thcir other buildings were connected by skyway, and this would make the flow easier through their complex. Commissioner Ricke askcd if the training centcr made sense without the skyway. Mr. Brashe replied they could still do the training ccnter, but the skyway would aid Guidant in their plans. . Commissioner Zimmennan inquired about the parking facility and asked if the parking would be adequatc. He stated from his calculations, tbey would be ten spaces short. Mr. Panish replied the City had guidelines that specified a certain number of parking stalls, however, from a design, aesthetic function, and environmental perspective, you did not ARDEN H1LLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3,2002 8 . want too add any more impervious parking surface than necessary. If parking was adequate to handle the facilities need, lrom staff's pcrspective proof of parking was acccptable. He indicated this is a generally accepted planning practice. He indicated that if parking bccame a problem on the property, the City would address this issue and Guidant would nced to add additional parking at that time, Commissioner Zimmernlan asked ifthe setback variance was a neccssity. He asked if it were denied, would this be a hardship, Mr. Larson stated Guidant had no intent of leaving the area any time soon, and he did not believe this setback would affect the property_ Mr. Parrish stated it was anticipated Guidant might come forth for a preliminary plat at thc next Planning Commission meeting, The City Council would makc the ultimate determination regarding the vacation of easements and the strect. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Femwood Avenue would still be a public street. Mr. Larson replicd it would still he a public street until vacated, at which time it would become a service drivc. Commissioner Duchenes asked whcre the additional landscaping would be located. Mr. Larson pointed out where the landscaping would be placed, . Commissioner Ricke stated this would still be less landscaping than what was rcquired. Mr. Parrisb replied that was correct, but there were a number of foundation plantings that did not show up on thc caliper inch level, but these foundation plantings also added to the acsthctics of the property. He also indicated this facility had courtyards and other site amenitics that are not taken into consideration with the currcnt landscaping requirements. Chair Sand statcd it appeared thc landscaping they were proposing to add would be removed at a future timc if the PUD werc approved. Mr. Larson replied that was correct and Guidant was willing to do that. Mr. Parrish statcd as the site devcloped, the landscaping wOLtld be continually evaluated and if landscaping were to be takcn out around the training center, tbe City would reevaluate the landscaping at thattimc. Mr. Frank expressed concern about how the application and requcst for approval was framed. He stated it seemcd to him that this was inappropriate and moved the project way beyond what should be happening at this stage. He indicated there were many studies that had not been completed yet and these studies were important to the overall development of the site. He stated vacating Femwood Avenue to put in the skyway was not appropriate at this time. He stated the only purpose for vacating Fernwood Avenue at this time was to put into place the lramework for Guidant's Master Plan. He stated the Commission's approval should be lor a stand-alonc facility at this time. . Mr. Parrish stated thc project could be stand alone. He explained that the condition of approval relative to this item takes into account both scenarios_ He indicated that if Femwood was not vacated, it wonld be necessary for Guidant to obtain an easement from the City to encroach on its right of way, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 9 . Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Duchenes asked what the average height of thc building was. 'vir. Larson rcplied on the south base of the building was a two story, 34-36 foot building. The west sidc was a 3-story 52-54 foot building. He indicated due to the topography of the site, it was difficult to detennine what the average height was. Commissioner Zimmcrman asked if a part of the variance request could bc approved and if part of the variance request not be approved. Mr. ParTish indicated that thc Planning Commission must act upon the rcquest, or table it for additional inJormation. Chair Sand movcd, seconded by Commissioner Bezdicek, to approve Planning Case #02- 05A, Guidant Site Plan Review based on thc following conditions: 1. The applicant obtains final plat approval prior to the issLlance of a building pcrmit. 2. The applicant submits a reviscd landscape plan to include 250 caliper inches of landscaping as approved by stall. The percentage of caliper inchcs shall be consistent with the percentages outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, 3. The skyway over Fcrnwood Avenue not bc constructed until either the strect is vacated, or an a1ternativc arrangement is agreed to witb thc City such as an easement over a non-vacatcd Fernwood Avenuc, . 4. Installing an additional hydrant on both the nOTth and south side of the building as approved by the Fire Inspector. 5. A final grading, drainage, and utility plan be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. 6. The applicant submit a landscape pcrformance bond or other surety for 125% of the cost of matcrials and installation valid one full year from the date of installation prior to the issuance of a building pemlit. 7. Thc applicant obtains all neccssary pernlits from the Rice Creek Water Shed District, MPCA, and other governmental entities. 8. Compliance with the Zoning Code and relatcd municipal ordinances. Commissioncr Zimmerman made the following friendly amendmcnt: Actual parking spaces are consistent for what is required versus the proof of parking spaces, for a total of2,147 identified parking spaces. Commissioner Zimmern1an stated as the parking currently existed, it did not mect the Code . requirement. Mr. Parrish replied if there was a problem in the futurc with insufficient parking, this would be addressed at that timc utilizing one of thc proof of parking areas. Mr. Larson replied the purpose of the training center was for thc people already on campus, and they would not add any additional parking. The additional parking would be Jar the "shell" ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 10 . space, which gcncrated the 200 cars for the training center. The "shcll" space would at some point in the future be used as offiee spaee, but it would bc vacant for the present time. Commissioner Zimmenllan reiterated that the parking as proposed did not meet City Code_ Chair Sand statcd he would not accept Commissioner Zimmennan's friendly amendment. The motion calTied (6-1) (Commissioner Zimmernlan). Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Galatowitscb, to approve Planning Case #02-05B, Guidant Site Variance Request based on the following conditions: 1. The circumstances for which the VariallCe is requested are uniqne to the property. 2. Granting the variance would be in kecping witb the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning code. 3. The property in qnestion cannot bc put to a reasonable use without granting a variance, 4, Granting the variance will not alter the cssential charactcr of the neighborhood, . The motion carried (6-1) (Commissioner Zimmerman). Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Ricke to extend the Planning Commission meeting past 10:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS CASE # 01-28 - CATHOLIC CHARITIES SIGN STANDARD ADJUSTMENT Staff reviewed their report datcd March 21, 2002 and recommended approval of the sign standard adjustment for the reasons contained therein. Commissioner Lemberg asked where the residents V\iere located that objected to this sign. Mr. Parrish replied unless the residents gave their address in their e-mails, hc was not sure where thcy were located, but he presumed they were located on Benton Way. Commissioner Zimmennan askcd if this was a variance request. Mr. Parrish rcplied this was a sign adjustment request. Commissioner Ricke asked if tbey had looked at scaling the sign down to a 16-foot sign. Mr. Pan-ish stated they did not request any documentation as to how a 16-foot sign would . look. The Commission bad previously requested the sign be shortened from their last request, which applicant had donc. He stated if the sign was too short, it would not be able to fit the namc of the applicant easily and the sign would not be readable. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 11 . Commissioncr Duchenes stated they had a fairly large sign now and asked if this would take up more arca than what they had now, Mr. Parrish stated the eun-ent sign was 12 feet high, but he was not sure in tenns of area if it was any larger. Chair Sand asked if this sign complied with tbe sctback requirements. Mr. Parrish replied the proposed sign would comply with the set back requirements. Chair Sand asked if the logos represented wcre allowable. Mr. Pan-ish rcplied the logos were allowed. Chair Sand askcd why staff limited it to three tenants. Mr. Parrish replied the point would be that if an additional tenant came on, thc sign would not be cluttered. He indicated at this timc however, they did not have a requirement as to the amount of verbiage on a sign. Chair Sand asked where the sixteen-foot height was measured, Mr. Pan-ish replied it was measured from the base of the sign to the top of the sign. Chair Sand asked if they made any accounting for the base. Mr. PalTish rcplied he did not belicve there were any requirements regarding the base and how the sign should be measurcd. . Commissioner Bezdieek asked about the illumination of the sign, 'vir. Parrish replied the sign would be backlit. Chair Sand asked if tbe names would be backlit, or if it would be the whole sign be backlit. Thc Sign Designer replied it would only be the namcs and addresscs, not the whole sign. Commissioner DLlchenes moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmcrman, to approve Case #01-28, Catholic Aid Association Sign Standard Adjustment, based on the following findings and following conditions: 1. The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the arca or that is more consistent with the architectural and design of the site. 2. Thc sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose ofthc zoning district in which the property is located. 0 Sign copy being limited to three occupants and address numbers. co, 4. Sufficient landscape being providcd to conceal the concrete base of the sign as approved by staff. . 5 Compliance with tbe Zoning Code and Sign Ordinance. Chair Sand inquired if staff would be monitoring the landscaping placed around the sign. Mr. PalTish replied this would be lookcd at when the sign pennit was requested. - ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 12 . Motion adopted (6-0) (Commissioner Rickc abstained). REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Zimmemun updated the Commission on the Joint Task Forcc meeting regarding the maintenance facility. B. Staff Mr. Parrish stated next Monday at 5:30 p,m. Council would bc hearing a prcsentation from a developer interested in partnering with the City regarding the TCAAP. Mr. PalTish stated all Commissioners should now have a copy of the Comp Plan and reminded the Commissioners that the Met Council had not yet approved this. Mr. Parrish stated they had a draft of the Park and Open Trails Space Plan, which had not bccn approved yet, but once Council approved it, the Planning Commission would receive an updated copy of it. Mr. Pan-ish stated tbere was a Town Hall meeting on April 20, 2002. . Chair Sand requested a copy of the sign Ordinance, Mr. PalTish replied he would get members ofthe Commission a copy. C. Councilmember Councilmember Aplikowski updated the Commissioners on Council's decisions made at the recent City Council meeting. Councilmember Aplikowski stated Tom Moore was back at work. Councilmember Aplikowski stated there were two TCAAP mcctings this weck. Council was meeting tomorrow with the ArnlY and the GSA people_ On Friday, Reprcsentative McCullum was having an Opcn House discussion at the Sborevicw City Hall from 1 :00 p.m. 3:00 p.m, Councilmember Aplikowski stated Council has been looking at the staff structure, SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Mr, Parrish stated there werc training opportunitics available to the COlmnissioncrs and if they wcre interested in any of them, he will get thcm signed up. . ADJOURc"ME","T Commissioner Ricke moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to adjourn the meeting at 10:31 p,m. The motion canied unanimously (7-0)