My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 09-24-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CC 09-24-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:37 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 1:45:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />there was discussion of tall buildings on the I-35W/I-694 intersection. He noted it was <br />not a good precedent that the city was establishing. He added he would like to postpone <br />the decision and wait for additional information. He stated if the Council denied this <br />application, Guidant could not return with another request for six months. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish noted the sixteen-foot height limitation only applied to freestanding signs. <br />He added it was unclear if it applied to wall mounted signs. He stated the 50-foot office <br />building down the road could have signage on it. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion <br />to approve a variance for a water tower sign for the reasons and conditions <br />contained in the staff report. The motion failed. (2-3 Larson, Rem, and Probst). <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated that if the applicant did not give the Council more time the Council's only <br />alternative would be to deny the application. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked if the Council had formally asked for more time. Mr. Riehle <br />responded Guidant could grant an extension in lieu of a denial. He stated he was <br />concerned that sixty days would put them at the end of November and they would not be <br />able to proceed this year. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch stated staff could be ready first at the first meeting in October with <br />information on what other cities had done. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion <br />to table the case until the October 29,2001 City Council Meeting. The motion <br />carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />2. Case #01-24, T.J. Food Ventures (Perkins), 3855 N. Lexington Avenue., Site Plan <br />Review, Restaurant Expansion <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish explained the application. He noted the additional condition that the eastern <br />entrance be an "enter only" entrance due to traffic concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Tom Cory, the owner and operator, stated existing front entrance was intentionally <br />redesigned so people would not think it was an entrance any longer. He noted Perkins <br />required them to do a remodel or move the restaurant. He added it did not comply with <br />American with Disabilities Act requirements. He stated these upgrades would address <br />that and allow it to look like the new stores. He showed illustrations. He noted the <br />dumpster was enclosed in brick to match the hotel next door and had a roof <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked Mr. Cory what he thought of the third condition. Mr. Cory <br />responded they had discussed it. He stated the lights at the intersection needed to be <br />changed. He noted most of customers were doing it anyway. He added until the traffic <br />signals were addressed they would have a continuous problem. He stated that with the <br />Super Target, traffic was horrible. He noted the traffic signals should be stacked. He <br />added the opening of the Target grocery store had added 18% to his business. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.