My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-13-1994
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1994
>
CCP 06-13-1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:51 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 3:20:58 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.
/
67
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 - JUNE 13, 1994 5 <br /> property. There is an existing easement with the property owner of the clinic which <br /> will continue. If that access easement would ever be withdrawn, staff recommends <br /> that the SUP be reviewed by the City. <br /> Fritsinger stated that there are no changes to the parking lot or drainage. The existing <br /> drainage would flow from the southwest corner into the ditch along the highway. The <br /> design of the building does meet Code requirements, and the colors will be the <br /> existing AMOCO colors. The Planning Commission did request the applicant to add <br /> smaller shrubs along the freeway on the west side of the property to prnvide <br /> additional screening from the freeway. The Planning Commission did not review the <br /> signage plan and has requested that once completed, the Commission have the <br /> opportunity to review and approve it. The Planning Commission recommended <br /> approval of the proposal, subject to the screening conditions. <br /> Fritsinger stated that the applicant maintains all local, state and federal permits. <br /> There will be no parking of damaged, inoperable or unlicensed vehicles outside of the <br /> service bays. As detailed in the staff report, no exterior storage will be permitted. <br /> Hicks asked what the existing setback conditions are that cause the building to be non- <br /> conforming. <br /> . Fritsinger stated that there is a City requirement that the parking lot abut the property <br /> line and the building be set back 10 feet. In this instance, the building is on the <br /> property line. When this building was approved there were some issues of frontage <br /> and setback requirements. The Council at that time ultimately granted a variance to <br /> allow the building to sit in its present location. <br /> Hicks noted that the green space is the required 25 percent only with the portion of <br /> berm on the adjacent property. <br /> Mr. Ted Brausen stated that he would be willing to enlarge the berm three feet onto <br /> the AMOCO property to meet the 25 percent landscape requirement and also maintain <br /> the portion of berm on the adjacent property. That would increase the landscaping to <br /> slightly greater than 25 percent. <br /> Hicks noted that the Planning Commission minutes state conditions for the amended <br /> special use permit contingent upon maintaining the existing parking agreement with <br /> the former restaurant. He asked if Mr. Brausen will own both properties. <br /> Mr. Brausen stated that he is in the process of negotiating to purchase the AMOCO <br /> station. There is no problem with maintaining the parking easement with the <br /> restaurant. It goes with the property and will need to be transferred. <br /> . Hicks noted, as a point of information, the concern of the property owner to the east <br /> -----.-- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.