My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-23-15-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
02-23-15-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/20/2015 5:38:44 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 5:22:46 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 5 <br /> <br />7. That the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the <br />estimated costs of landscaping prior to the issuance of a building permit. The escrow will <br />be held by the City for two years after installation of landscaping and used for City costs <br />related to review, approval, and inspection of landscaping, or developer default. <br />8. That the proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA- <br />NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- <br />Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and <br />Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior <br />to the issuance of any development permits. <br />9. That the final plans shall be subject to approval by the Building Official and Fire Marshal <br />prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br />10. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public <br />Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and <br />erosion control permit or other development permits. <br />11. That upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility <br />as-built shall be provided to the City for review. <br />12. That the final plans shall be revised to meet the standards as outlined by the Assistant <br />City Engineer in the memo dated 1-27-15. <br />13. That the final Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City <br />prior to the issuance of a building permit. <br />14. That the applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. <br /> <br /> City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Matt Pacyna, SRF Consulting, discussed the traffic report in detail with the Commission. He <br />explained that SRF was hired by the City to complete the traffic study. The existing site <br />conditions were reviewed along with the planned improvements to the area. He provided <br />comment on the traffic count numbers and stated that he believed his numbers were on the <br />conservative side. He then asked for questions or comments from the Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa believed that the intersection needed a right turn lane from southbound <br />Lexington Avenue onto Red Fox Road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones expressed concern with how truck traffic may back up leaving the site <br />during peak traffic hours at Lexington Avenue. He feared that Red Fox Road was too narrow for <br />the proposed truck traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Pacyna stated this would be a balancing act for the business owner. He noted the County <br />was looking into enhancements for the Red Fox Road and Lexington Avenue intersection in <br />order to better accommodate truck traffic. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.