7B, Planning Case 08-026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Beekman stated the County has been supportive of this and supported the recent crossing over the railroad tracks. She explained that ultimately, when the City wants to put in a sidewalk, there are different financing tools available, with assessments being the most common or placing funds in escrow for this purpose. Chair Larson directed staff to look into the escrowing of funds for the approximate cost of the sidewalk in the form of an assessment, and to present this language to the City Council as a possible additional condition to approval of the CUP amendment. Commissioner Holewa stated he would hope that Ramsey County would pay for the sidewalk. Chair Larson stated that he felt a condition or some other form of additional language needs to be added to make sure that regardless of the method of funding, that Arby's is aware of it. He reiterated his request to staff to investigate the issue further and add language that a sidewalk is a desirable feature of this project, but is not part of the Planning Commission's approval process at this point. Commissioner Sand indicated the prospective lessee has indicated they would likely provide an accessible path on the property that they lease and have expressed a good faith proposal that they would add a path if and when appropriate. Mr. Soukup noted that any sidewalk would have to be close to the street due to the drainage ditch running along Lexington Avenue. He expressed support for a pedestrian walkway on the north side of Lexington Avenue. Commissioner Holewa stated condition #9 requires the existing Burger King sign located on the free standing pylon be removed and noted this sign is not on the applicant's property. Ms. Beekman stated this condition was crafted with the understanding that the property owner wanted the sign removed; either way, the property owner is aware and the condition was made with the understanding that the property owner is aware of it. Chair Larson stated this represents a non-conforming sign and the sign ordinance requires that the sign be removed. Ms. Beekman stated the sign is non-conforming and noted in discussions with Community Development Director Lehnhoff, if the size of the sign does not change and only the face is changed, this was determined to be acceptable to staff. Commissioner Reiff moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to recommend approval of Planning Case #08-026, for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment at