1982_0412_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1363-82 APPLICANT: Harry Schroeder Page 5 C. In locations where Spirea is located in shade, this species may not receive adequate light. d. Red Twig Dogwood is proposed-to be planted at the base of the loffelstein blacks which line the ponding area near the middle of the site. As this species grows, it may deteriorate the loffelstein wall. We suggest the possible use of f'Engleman r s Ivy" for this purpose. Other elements of the plan we feel are well done as proposed. 5. Going back to the Preliminary be given to a portion of the and Restrictions of Hamline P required with the Preliminary that Section 6 of Axtial e XI, -States as follows: Plat we suggest some consideration might "Declaration of covenants, Conditions, laza Office Park" which were submitted as Plat. In reviewing this document, we note General Restrictions, dealing with signs "Section 6. Signs. The design for the townoff ices to be constructed by the Developer includes the placement of a sign for each townoffice (or groupADf townoffices) in which a single business is located.. The size, dimensions, content, lighting, and ornamentation of the signs is part of the overall development within the control of the Developer. Modifications and alterations of signs shall require the approval of the Architectural control committee after the submission of plans and specifications for such modifications and alterations to the Architectural Control Committee." 6. we have discussed with the applicant the importance of determining a sign policy with adequate controls so that individual office unit owners will not be tempted to place large unsightly signs in the interest of attracting attention from the passing public on llamline Avenue. A single pylon is proposed to identify the office park which is fine, but we feel that the individual signage could be a problem. we suggest that the applicant be asked to produce the signage plan mentioned in the restrictions and that this be reviewed by the staff. You will notice that the restrictions place the control of signage within the purview of the Architectural Committee only. This may be fine, but we suggest that the restrictions include review and approval by the City for any substantial change in sign policy. This provision could avert substantial controversy in the future, the results of which could adversely affect residential properties in the area and the overall quality of the development.