My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-06-22-PC Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2022
>
07-06-22-PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/4/2022 9:51:32 AM
Creation date
8/4/2022 9:51:24 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.
/
10
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 – July 6, 2022 3 <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Vice Chair Wicklund opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys asked what the code amendment process was. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe discussed the code amendment process with the Commission. It was noted <br />if the code amendment was approved, it would apply to all future requests regarding menu <br />boards. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys questioned if Condition 17 addressed the flexibility being requested. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe stated Condition 17 reiterated the fact that, if approved,the applicant would <br />have to apply for a separate sign permit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber inquired if the City would be paying for any of the sidewalk along <br />Lexington Avenue. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe reported the City would be splitting the cost for the sidewalk along <br />Lexington Avenue 50/50 with the County. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber indicated the purpose of new developments was to have businesses pay <br />for the cost of adjacent infrastructure. He recommended the developer pay for the sidewalk <br />along Lexington Avenue given the fact they are being redone at this time. He then asked how the <br />City defines digital display signs. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe reviewed how City Code defines digital display signs. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber asked staff for further information regarding the exterior building <br />materials that would be used. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Wicklund reported the applicant had provided staff with a product materials board. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell questioned if there was a difference between smart and dynamic signs. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe explained these signs were the same. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell discussed the landscaping requirements and noted the applicant would <br />not be meeting the City’s tree requirements. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe indicated the City’s landscaping and tree requirements were two separate <br />requirements under City Ordinance. The applicant was seeking flexibility to the minimum <br />landscaping lot area requirements. The proposed number of trees along the right-of-way <br />complied. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.