09-08-21 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 8 Commissioner Weber commented on the Walgreens building and how it was oriented on the site. He questioned if the City was paying for the new sidewalk in the County right of way along Lexington Avenue. Senior Planner Jagoe stated she did not know the answer to this question. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further information on why businesses were orienting their buildings to the parking lot versus the main street of Lexington Avenue. Mr. Terwilliger reported tenants today want their storefront entrance as patrons walk in with parking up front. He stated this creates an easily walkable development. He explained if the front of the building were to face Lexington Avenue, patrons would have to walk around to another side of the building in order to access the front doors. Commissioner Weber stated this was reasonable, but noted the placement of the outlot building was also a concern to him. Commissioner Zimmerman discussed how it was sometimes difficult to place a building on a site in order to meet all of the City’s design standards. For this reason, flexibility can be offered in order to find middle ground where the City’s requirements and the developers standards mesh. He appreciated how the developer had tried to make this development as close to the City’s requirements as possible. Commissioner Subramanian questioned when construction would begin for this project. Mr. Terwilliger explained they would plan to begin demolition this fall with construction beginning next spring. Commissioner Jefferys stated she would like to have a better understanding why so many deviations from the City’s requirements was being requested. Ryan Anderson, ISG Civil Engineering, discussed the building placement in detail with the Commission. He explained the City required a 50 foot setback along Lexington Avenue, with the building required to be built at the 50 foot setback. He commented a 20 foot parking setback was also in place. He described how these requirements led him to the proposed building placement in order to create a destination for patrons. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further information regarding the landscaping flexibility. Senior Planner Jagoe reported the applicant was proposing to have 15% lot area coverage with landscaping when 25% was required by the City. She noted 14 trees were required within the development along the ROW and the applicant was proposing to plant four along the public street frontages. Mr. Anderson explained this was a tight site and was being retrofitted as it was now 100% impervious. He believed that he was bettering the situation by reducing this number to 85%. He understood he was short of meeting City Code, but noted 15% was in line with other communities for commercial developments. He was of the opinion 25% was a great deal of