09-24-12-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 6 City Planner Beekman explained that if the Zoning Code regulations are approved tonight, a follow-up item at a future meeting would be required to repeal the moratorium if the Council is ready to do that. It would be repealed by resolution. Additionally, there was discussion, both at the Council and Planning Commission levels regarding participation in Ramsey County's Crime Free Multi-family Housing Program and that it should become a requirement in participation in the City's rental registration program. Therefore, the rental registration ordinance is being revised to include all multi-family rental properties, and require that those properties participate in the Ramsey County Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program. Since this is a City Code amendment rather than a Zoning Code amendment, it is not required to go back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Grant thanked City Planner Beekman and the Planning Commission for addressing this topic so quickly. When this topic was originally discussed at the June 25, 2012, City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to work on the zoning study quickly and he acknowledged that staff and the Planning Commission met that goal. Mayor Grant asked City Planner Beekman to elaborate on the research that she did on multi- family dwelling requirements. City Planner Beekman stated that she contacted 14 other cities in the metro area. She called and interviewed staff in those cities to clarify their multi-family dwelling regulations and to gauge how well things have gone with those regulations. She also inquired about what amendments they would make if they were to change the regulations. Mayor Grant said that it is important to note that City Planner Beekman's recommendations are based on her conversations with other cities while researching their multi-family regulations, and that she did not come up with the proposed regulations on her own. Mayor Grant stated that this Zoning Code amendment is for the entire City; however, he questioned whether Mr. Rob Davidson, who spoke during the public hearing portion of the meeting, could bring his application forward as a PUD. He asked City Planner Beekman to explain the difference between CUP and PUD. City Planner Beekman indicated that if the applicant chose to submit the application as a PUD, he could. She explained that districts are divided within a Zoning Code and the uses that are permitted within those districts are defined. When it is a conditional use, it means it is a permitted use with conditions. The conditions have to be tied to certain aspects and depend on the areas the CUP is evaluating, such as impacts on parking, traffic, noise, odor, glare, etc. She stated that conditional use criteria can also be added for any type of conditional use. She noted that a PUD is an alternative review process and may be requested by an applicant for any type of application or development. With a PUD, the City can grant flexibility on certain aspects for a greater end- product project. She mentioned that Presbyterian Homes is a good example. That site was zoned R-4 and they requested flexibility on the height of the building. In exchange, they provided substantially more green space, landscaping, and storm water management than what would have been required by the minimum standards. When all was said and done, the project was more attractive than it would have been had just the minimum requirements been met.