Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 9 <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund stated he considered the lighting to be signage which would increase <br />the total wall signage requested by the Applicant. He expressed concern with how a precedent <br />could be set if the City allowed this type of lighting for a new business. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blilie offered that she would be ok with two car washes back to back and that she <br />would grant the flexibility as the overall look was pleasing and aligned with the brand. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums summarized the comments from the Commission stating it appears the <br />Commission could support the lighting, possibly reduced, noting the yellow lighting was for <br />branding purposes and should be allowed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins asked staff to confirm what flexibility was being requested on the <br />building transparency. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Fransen reported the Applicant was proposing the use of vision and spandrel <br />glass, with spandrel glass requiring flexibility to be considered as part of the total transparency. <br />She indicated that the Applicant included additional vision glass on the other elevations as well. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins asked about the flexibility for exterior building materials. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Fransen stated City required 75% of a building’s exterior to be constructed with <br />preferred materials. She indicated the building was proposed to be a brick and stone veneer <br />which was not listed as a preferred material. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins questioned what the problem was with the proposed fence based on the <br />Code evaluation. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Fransen stated the proposed building material for the fence did not fall within <br />the City’s list of recommended materials which include finished and treated wood, brick, stone <br />and wrought iron. She reported the applicant was proposing to use a composite material for the <br />fence. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins discussed how vehicles would enter and exit this site when Arby’s was <br />operational and noted he supported the entrance/exit remaining the same for the proposed car <br />wash. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums indicated he supported the location of the building as proposed. He explained he <br />drove through the site today and it had a deep lot. He commented further on how traffic would <br />flow in and through the site. He stated the Commission approved the use of a veneer façade for <br />the Crew Car Wash. He commented on how building materials were evolving and noted the City <br />Council may have to update its zoning code to allow for additional building and screening <br />materials. He supported this item moving forward as is and noted the Council would have the <br />final say when it came to the signs/tube lighting. He commended the applicant for bringing <br />forward a strong proposal noting they had made good use of this site. <br />