Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Minutes Page 7 02/02/94 <br />. <br /> Mr. Erickson explained until a deyelopment comes to the <br /> property, road discussions are futile. The property is more <br /> desirable now because of Target Greatland and the customers <br /> generated from them. It will bring in business and traffic <br /> into the area. His original understanding was Target <br /> planned to build with a grocery store. The idea was later <br /> discarded when Target made plans for their new Target <br /> Greatland. Mr. Erickson felt the next best potential <br /> development area would be directly across the street. He <br /> felt the Planning Commission's next step would be to help <br /> the Economic Development Committee. He proceeded to ask <br /> about the original endorsement of this study? <br /> Chair Winiecki stated the study was completed as a <br /> clarification of the businesses and those services offered <br /> in Arden Hills. <br /> Mr. Erickson stated the study could be used as background <br /> information or as a planning tool to direct businesses in <br /> the area. The City can also develop the area as desired and <br /> direct interested businesses to this area. The Land Use <br /> Plan is just a tool to help plan the area and not as a <br /> master plan to be strictly followed. The City needs to <br />. officially endorse the study as to the Planning Commission's <br /> goals for the area. Page 36 of the Lexington Study stated a <br /> plan and what the uses are for the area. <br /> Mr. Fritsinger stated the goals of the plan lends itself <br /> more towards a stay with the status quo, rather than a plan <br /> of action, <br /> Mr. Petersen explained a solid plan of attack would be <br /> beneficial before deyelopments are planned for the area, but <br /> street improvements could be planned around a business <br /> proposal. <br /> Mr. Fritsinger asked the commission to consider looking at <br /> the plan for both a short term recommendation and a long <br /> term recommendation. Starting with the Robert's proposal <br /> and continuing from there. <br /> Mr. McGraw stated the curb cut was proposed to make access <br /> to the business easier and the County has approved the curb <br /> cut. He indicated instead of hurting the business by denying <br /> the curb cut, they would be helped more by approving it. <br /> Mr. Petersen stated because Burger King has an access <br /> directly adjacent to the proposed cut, other businesses and <br /> safety issues were being compromised. These were reasons <br />. why the curb cut was denied preYiously by the Planning <br /> Commission. <br />