Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 9, 2018 3 <br /> <br />[Type text] <br />4.6 percent. The Zoning Code requires that 10 percent of the parking area be occupied by <br />parking islands. <br />9. The proposed site plan meets the minimum requirements for parking, loading, and <br />circulation in Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code. <br />10. The proposed freestanding sign is in conformance with Chapter 12 of the City Code. <br />11. The proposal is not expected to adversely affect the surrounding area of the community as <br />a whole. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this <br />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 />Commissioner Lambeth asked what the surface material would be for the playground area. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler stated he believed the playground would have a synthetic or real turf <br />surface material. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth questioned if the fencing would be six feet in height. <br /> <br />John Finnemore, Primrose Schools representative, reported the playground surface would be a <br />synthetic turf. He reported the fencing would be powder coated tubular metal and would not be <br />wrought iron. He explained the fence posts would be 3½ inches apart for safety purposes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones asked if Primrose Schools had purchased the entire lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Finnemore reported this would be his intent. Further discussion ensued regarding the traffic <br />flow in and out of this property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones questioned if Primrose Schools had plans for the remainder of the land for <br />the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Finnemore commented there were no plans in place at this time. He explained that a <br />portion of the land was not developable because of the wetlands. He asked if the franchisee <br />would be able to utilize and recondition the existing sign on the property. He stated a lower sign <br />would be less visible. <br /> <br />Chair Thompson indicated she had concerns about the design of the existing sign. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler reported the current sign was non-conforming due to its size and height. <br />He stated this sign could continue and be replaced for current users but could not be expanded in <br />any way or relocated. He explained the Planning Commission could look at modifying <br />Conditions 5 and 6.