My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-30-07-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
07-30-07-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 11:23:04 AM
Creation date
9/17/2007 11:22:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
07-30-07 Regular City Council Minutes
General - Type
Minutes
Date
7/30/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 - JULY 30, 2007 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />which means the impact would be the same. He stated that he spoke with Ramsey County, and <br />they were not anticipating any problems with the intersection. The primary potential benefit <br />from an updated traffic study would be to determine level of service and the change in <br />background traffic. He stated the Plamring Commission recommended approval based on the 23 <br />conditions. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated he was concerned about Round Lake Boulevard and adding <br />this development here. He asked when Round Lake Boulevard would be improved for this type <br />of development. Mr. Hoag responded this project was noted in the CIP, but it is unassigned. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung believed they needed to look at the unassigned status and get this on <br />the CIP. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant reviewed his history with the project proposal. He expressed thanks for <br />finally getting the plans and persevering. He asked if this property was in or outside of the TIP <br />district. <br /> <br />Staci K vilvang notes that the property is within the TIP district. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant states that the signs are large. He asked if they were anticipating getting <br />a huge anchor tenant to occupy a building or both buildings. <br /> <br />Dennis Mulvey, Chesapeake Companies, stated they would like to find one tenant to take all of <br />the space, but that was unlikely. He noted they were trying to accommodate the market right <br />now and that was the reason they had redesigned the buildings and site plan. He stated they <br />needed to plan for the possibility of multiple tenants in the buildings and that was the reason they <br />needed a sign to show the multiple tenants. He stated they also wanted to reduce impacts on <br />wetlands. He noted the sign would only have businesses on their sign that had a business in their <br />building( s). <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked if the main wall sign would be for the anchor tenant. Mr. <br />Mulvey indicated that it probably would be. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes express some concern about the monument sign at Round Lake Road <br />and confusion for people visiting the other businesses. Asks if the other businesses would be on <br />that monument sign. Mr. Mulvey states that the sign will just be for their property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked about the size of the proposed monument signs. Mr. Malvi <br />reviewed the proposed sign plan, sizes, and locations. <br /> <br />Mr, Lehnhoff reviews the height of the proposed sign for the Round Lake Road/Highway 96 <br />intersection. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden inquired about the parking and was concerned the City was requiring <br />too much asphalt. Mr. Mulvey responded they would like to build what was required and show <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.