My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-05
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
07-11-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2012 10:46:46 AM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:22:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
297
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 />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />JUNE 27, 2005 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated this building was not meeting the standards set by the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if it was possible to move the road farther south. Mr. Sacco <br />responded they were revising the site plan to shift it down a little bit. He stated they wanted to <br />make the northerly pump island convenient for the residents coming off of Round Lake without <br />having to make an awkward turn. He stated they could shift this to the south, but for ease of <br />access, the flow should be to get off Round Lake Road as quickly as possible to access the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if the islands could be angled. Mr. Sacco replied if they were <br />angled, the people coming off of Highway 96 would have to jog and the best option was to not <br />angle the islands. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if they put a condition on this development that Council wanted <br />to see some other building material other than efface, what would be his response to this. Mr. <br />Sacco responded he believed this was an attractive looking building and if it were to be all brick, <br />the building would lose its curb appeal and it would be too dark without any definition. He noted <br />they had been working with staff extensively on this and he believed the building looked good. <br />He agreed this was a prominent location and they wcreexcited to build the development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he agreed the building should not be all brick, but he did not like <br />the efface. He did not believe it lent the quality to the development they were seeking. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked what the percentage of efface being used was. Mr. Hellegers noted it <br />was approximately 20 percent of the building. He indicated this would be a nice looking building <br />for the use. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated efface was just on the small strip along the top of the building and the <br />car wash colunms. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson noted efface did not hold up over time and when they adopted their <br />standards, it was the intention of the City to not have efface on buildings. He stated he did not <br />want to back down on the quality ofthis development. He indicated the white looked nice, but he <br />wanted a different building material used. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated she did not have a problem with this and believed they were "late to <br />the game" with making this change and this should have been addressed at the Planning <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated they had adopted the building standards and she did not believe it <br />was too late in the game to require this. Mr. Hellegers noted efface was not a material listed as <br />being acceptable, but there was some give and take on this development, including the additional <br />landscaping, pitched roof, brick on the columns, and the monument sign. He believed this was a <br />good compromise and would be a nice development. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.