My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 05-27-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCP 05-27-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:18:26 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 2:36:03 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.
/
99
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-.4, <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 7, 2003 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Commissioner Ricke asked if the report had taken into account what would happen with <br />the traffic once TCAAP developed and Guidant expanded. Mr. Hellegers replied they <br />could request an updated traffic study when the PUD was presented. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if it was the intent of the church that in the future when <br />large events did occur, that traffic control personnel would be hired to manage the traffic <br />flow in and out of the site. <br /> <br />Ken Kerns, architect, replied there would be a signal at the Highway 96 intersection and <br />they had traffic control personnel at all of their events, and he believed with the traffic <br />signal in place that would also help. He stated until the signal was put in by the County, <br />they would have traffic control personnel there. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked if they could encourage the County to put the light in before the <br />TCAAP was developed. Mr. Anderson replied if there was a need for the light, the <br />County had indicated they would put one in, but until that time, they would use traffic <br />control personnel at any events. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked what percentage of traffic would exit off of Highway 96. Mr. Kerns <br />replied he believed they would be able to get people off the site much faster than they <br />could at the present time and he believed most people would use the Highway 96 exit. <br /> <br />Chair Sand noted the parking on the east side of the lot was larger than the northern side <br />and he questioned if they would actually exit onto Highway 96. He stated he believed <br />most people would use North Snelling because it was more convenient. Mr. Kerns <br />replied it depended which way people wanted to go out onto Highway 96. If they were <br />going west on Highway 96, they would want to use the signalized traffic control at their <br />main entrance, <br /> <br />Chair Sand requested they have a better explanation of the traffic flow percentage going <br />in and out of the site before they present their PUD. <br /> <br />Chair Sand stated they should assume they are a church in a residential area and not a <br />commercial development and therefore the landscaping needed to be enhanced. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked what type of landscaping was along the east side. Mr. Parrish replied <br />there was no berm and there would be maples trees planted along the east side. <br /> <br />Chair Sand suggested a berm and deciduous trees be placed along the east side. <br /> <br />Chair Sand expressed concem about the scrolling text on their sign. He asked if the new <br />sign would conform to the sign ordinance. Mr. Parrish noted that the current sign was a <br />conditional of approval for that sign and staff would contact the church about this and <br />remind them that the sign needed to conform to the eonditions ofthe Commission. <br /> <br />Chair Sand stated if they were going to request two large free-standing signs, the church <br />would need a good reason for that request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.