My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8C, Planning Case 12-008 – Cub Foods PUD Amendment
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
05-29-12-R
>
8C, Planning Case 12-008 – Cub Foods PUD Amendment
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 11:21:51 AM
Creation date
9/28/2012 9:50:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Drive-up Window Findings: <br />4. The drive-up window would be located within 1,320 feet of another drive-up window. <br />5. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Code pertaining to drive-up <br />windows, with the exception of the 1,320-foot separation requirement. <br />6. The Zoning Code specifies criteria for waiving the 1,320 feet separation requirement. <br />7. The proposal meets all criteria specified in the Zoning Code for waiving the 1,320- <br />foot separation requirement. <br />Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings <br />8. The proposal will not negatively impact traffic flow or parking on the site because the <br />modifications to the parking are minimal, and the pharmacy is a pre-existing use. <br />Furthermore, the site is sufficiently large, with traffic circulation patterns in place to <br />handle large amount of traffic and parking demand. <br />9. The proposal will not permanently change noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, <br />air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste. <br />10. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. <br />11. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. <br />12. The proposal would not be incompatible with the other buildings in the B-3 Zone. <br />13. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or <br />on neighboring properties. <br />14. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this application. <br />Signage Findings <br />15. The original PUD was approved for the following signage: Wall signage; 678 square <br />feet; Monument sign: 100 square feet; Total: 778 square feet. <br />16. The City granted 40 square feet of additional signage in 2007. <br />17. The proposed sign plan would increase the amount of signage on the property by <br />163.54 square feet. The pharmacy sign on the front of the building would be <br />replaced, and a new pharmacy sign would be located on the south side of the <br />property. <br />18. There are no site conditions that exist that if additional signage is allowed will make <br />the proposed or existing signage on the building reasonable visible from adjacent <br />property. <br />19. The building and the services offered within it are reasonably visible to adjacent <br />streets within the existing signage allotment for the property. <br />20. Additional signage will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the <br />zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Zoning Requirements. Currently there are <br />three drive-up windows within 1,320 feet of property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.