My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08-14-1989
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
CC 08-14-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:07 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:22:10 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.
/
7
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 />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, August 14, 1989 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CASE #89-11 (Cont'd) The Planner reviewed the internal traffic circulation <br />problems which exist in this industrial area, noting the <br />traffic exits onto Lexington from each site without any circulation between <br />businesses along Lexington Avenue or utilizing the other streets in the area. <br />He explained this rezoning, if approved, would be the first of the large <br />industrial buildings in the area to be redeveloped; when other buildings follow <br />suit, the traffic circulation pattern in the area and access to Lexington should <br />be reviewed. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning based on adjacent <br />uses and the uses allowed in the B-2 District are more compatible with adjacent <br />uses than those permitted in the 1-2 District. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone expressed concern relative to the traffic circulating onto <br />Lexington Avenue and questioned if the City could restrict the number of curb <br />cuts onto Lexington Avenue. He stated it appears to be logical to extend the B-2 <br />District along Lexington Avenue to the north, but not beyond 1-694. <br /> <br />Planner Bergly advised~the options for restricting traffic onto Lexington are <br />becoming limited; separate ownership of the parcels increases the problem. He <br />explained the access points could be limited if the parcels were owned by the <br />same person and there may be a chance to do so in conjunction with the industrial <br />areas to the west of Lexington Avenue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald questioned if the applicant has indicated when <br />construction would begin on this project. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Bergly stated the architect for the project advises construction could begin next <br />spring. <br /> <br />Growe moved, seconded by Mahowald, that Council approve <br />Case #89-11 an application for rezoning and adopt Ordinance 261, Rezoning a <br />portion of Lexington Avenue from 1-2 (General Industrial) To B-2 (General <br />Business. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br />CASE #88-36; <br />REVISED SITE PLAN, <br />HANS HAGEN, COUNTY <br />RD. E-2/CLEVELAND <br /> <br />Council was referred to the Planner's report and Planning <br />Commission minutes dated 8-2-89, relative to the Revised <br />Site Plan submitted by Hans Hagen for development on <br />Cleveland Avenue and County Road E-2. <br /> <br />The Planner explained this matter had been reviewed by Council and referred to <br />Planning Commission due to the site plan revisions and two requested variances. <br /> <br />Bergly stated the Commission had reviewed the revised plan and discussed the <br />variances for parking and sign at length. He explained the parking and sign <br />variance relates to setback requirements from County Road E-2; a variance of 15 <br />ft. for both parking and sign setback are being requested. <br /> <br />The Planner described the uniqueness of the site as related to the unusually <br />large right-of-way on Cleveland and County Road E-2. The applicant had originally <br />proposed a two-story building which could be placed on the site without any <br />variances. The revised building plan is for a one-story building with a larger <br />footprint and the topography limits placement on the site. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Bergly noted Planning Commission recommended approval of the 15 ft. parking <br />setback based on the fact the variance would enhance the site appearance and <br />there were identifiable hardships. <br /> <br />The Planner stated Commission did not take formal action on the sign variance. He <br />explained that in discussion at the meeting it appeared the Commission consensus <br />was that the sign variance would be appropriate and enhance the site appearance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.