My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 02-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 02-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:32 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:36:10 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.
/
194
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 />. <br /> <br />submitted a memorandum to the Planning Commission (Exhibit E), addressing his concerns <br />regarding the proposal as it relates to community gateways in the City. <br /> <br />Traffic Study. The applicant hired URS/BRW to complete a traffic study for the impacts of <br />the proposed Walgreens on the Lexington Avenue/County Road E area. The study (Exhibit <br />F) illustrates that the proposed changes to County Road E will actually improve the <br />intersection and traffic flow, even with the addition of a Walgreens store at this location. <br /> <br />Sign age. The Sign Ordinance permits one freestanding sign and one wall mounted business <br />sign per frontage on a public street. The proposed freestanding sign meets the Sign Ordinance <br />requirements whereas the wall mounted signs must be adjusted to not be higher than 16 feet <br />in height at the top ofthe sign. Significant discussion took place around a gateway sign for <br />the City at this location. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Gateway Designated Areas <br />The November 1998 Comprehensive Plan update identifies "Community Gateways" in <br />Figure 7.1, Road Classifications (Exhibit E 1/4). This map, as adopted, does not match the <br />identified "Community Gateways" in the 1985 Parkway System Feasibility Study (Exhibit E <br />2/4). The Parkway System Feasibility Study amended the 1980 Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit <br />E3/4) which was completely redone in the 1998 update. The Comprehensive Plan, as <br />updated, does not identifY the comer of Lexington Avenue and County Road E as a <br />"Community Gateway". The Planning Commission has directed staff to amend the <br />Comprehensive Plan through the proper procedures to correct the map. <br /> <br />Although this property is not formally designated as a "Community Gateway" by the last <br />adopted plan, the applicant has attempted to incorporate the landscaping ideas from the <br />Parkway System plan into their plans (Exhibit E 4/4). The only information provided on <br />"Community Gateways" in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is as follows: <br /> <br />"The intent is that special attention be paid to enhancing intersections where there is <br />an entrance to the community. Special attention may include street and curb <br />realignments, signage, burying overhead utility lines, berming and landscaping. <br />Design parameters need to be developed to help define each intersection." <br /> <br />This language is vague and provides little direction for potential applicants. rfthe City wishes <br />to have specific design guidelines for "Community Gateways", they should be developed and <br />adopted into the City's Zoning Ordinance as a separate district or overlay district. <br />Additionally, the properties identified as "Community Gateways" are not City owned parcels. <br />If the City intends to have entrance signs on any of these properties in the future or have <br />special landscaping, the City would have to purchase land, replat as substandard lots for a <br />sign or obtain a permanent easement from the private property owner, if willing. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Deadline for Al!encv Actions <br />The City of Arden Hills received a complete application for this request on December 6, 2000, <br />Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 4,2001 (60 <br />days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.