My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-2016 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2016
>
06-08-2016 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2017 5:08:39 PM
Creation date
6/6/2017 4:55:07 PM
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.
/
150
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 – April 6, 2016 13 <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson stated this was the case. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make <br />comment. <br /> <br />There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bartel questioned how much water would be held in the underground retention <br />system. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler was uncertain as to the specific size of the system. He understood that <br />the Rice Creek Watershed District would require the property to put in place a system that will <br />allow for the proper treatment of water runoff for a range of rain events. The City Engineer did <br />not have any concerns with the design of the system. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones stated he was not comfortable with the size of the sign or the proposed <br />location. <br /> <br />Commissioner Neururer agreed. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson appreciated the explanation from the applicant as to why the sign was located <br />on the eastern corner. However, she agreed the proposed location was confusing. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Bachler suggested that the Planning Commission could direct staff to work with <br />the applicant on the monument sign location prior to the item being reviewed by the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson explained her concern with the sign placement was due to the traffic patterns <br />along County Road E. <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson indicated she has been working in retail architecture for the past 28 years. She <br />commented that pylon or monument signs have not been used as entry or directional signs, but <br />rather are used for advertising purposes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth discussed how the proposed monument sign location would be <br />confusing to passing traffic. <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson stated the feedback she has received from the market was that there was more <br />value in being visible from the intersection at Lexington Avenue than placing the monument sign <br />at the property entrance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Neururer explained that he drove this thoroughfare daily. He expressed concern <br />with how traffic entering and exiting the site would impede traffic. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson recommended staff work with the applicant on the monument sign placement <br />prior to this item being reviewed by the City Council.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.