1982_0614_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1363-82 APPLICANT : Harry Schroeder C., In locations where Spirea is located in shade, this species may net receive adequate light. Pag e 5 d; Red Twig Dogwood is proposed to be planted at the base of the loffelstein blocks which line the ponding area near the middle of the site. As this species grows, it may deteriorate the lof f el stein wall. We suggest the possible use of "EnglemanIs Ivy" for this purpose. other elements of the plan we feel are well done as proposed, Going back to the Preliminary Plat we suggest some consideration might be given to a portion of the "Declaration of covenants, conditions, and Restrictions of Hamline Plaza of five Parr" which were submitted as required with the Preliminary Plat. In reviewing this document, we note that Section 6 of Article X1, General. Restrictions, dealing with signs states as follows: "Section 6. Signs. The design for the townoffices to be constructed by the Developer includes the placement of a sign for each townof f ice (or group of townof fices ) 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 Hamline 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 propert -,es in the area and the overall duality of the development.