12-06-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, 12-6-89 Page 2 CASE #89-21 (Cont'd) The Planner discussed the areas of concern listed in his report: • 1. Traffic Impact: Traffic will continue to be a major concern of the City in development along Lexington Avenue. The flexibility for dealing with traffic is reduced with each new development. A traffic study was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by City Engineer Maurer. A copy of the Engineer's review dated 11-27-89 was forwarded to Commission. The Planner suggested an overall traffic study on Lexington Avenue between I-694 and County Road E be accomplished while there is still an opportunity to correct problems. 2. Storm Water Storage: A few sites in the area provide storm water storage, but many of the sites have nearly 100% hard cover with little opportunity to retain storm water. Shared ponding areas may be necessary as redevelopment occurs in this area. The subject site has open swale which collects storm water during times of peak runoff. The site also has an existing pond area on the southwest border and an area on the north perimeter. This site will likely not create additional runoff. 3. Parking: The 23 parking spaces along the north property line are in a joint parking easement with the property to the north. The terms of that easement should be submitted before acceptance of the final plan to meet parking requirements. The parking shown does not have the 5 ft. setback, as required by • Ordinance. The Engineer has indicated some concerns relating to the parking ingress and egress; particularly on the front of the site. The site has parking areas on both the front and rear of the building; all the spaces are needed to meet parking requirements. A passageway through the building is provided to allow access to shops along the link. The Engineer noted that it may take some time for persons using the facility to become accustomed to the arrangement with parking in the rear. The Planner noted employees could utilize the parking areas on the north and rear of the site; it may be difficult to get customers to utilize the rear parking. 4. Exterior Wall Surfaces: The Planner expressed concern relative to the unfinished concrete block walls on the south, north and west walls of the proposed building. He stated if the developer is attempting to entice shoppers and tenants to utilize the space, the building should be "dressed up". The front of the building is a combination of concrete block and brick; this area is proposed to be eliminated with the new building design. 5. Signs: The signs will come under the special provisions for "Multiple Occupancy Structures". A sign plan showing the exact location and description of each sign is not possible to prepare prior to leasing space. A sign plan should be submitted which shows the locations of and describes the freestanding site identifications signs and should show the locations of wall-mounted business • signs. If specific tenants are know at the time of final submission, the sign plan should include details.