My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-29-15-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
06-29-15-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2015 2:35:10 PM
Creation date
6/26/2015 9:23:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
144
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
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 4, 2015 4 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reconvened the special City Council work session at 8:15 p.m. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woodburn shared a handout with the Council on warehousing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden inquired about the warehousing definitions and how they fit with the <br />TRC. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that warehousing is not permitted. She <br />noted that definitions only appear in the TRC if they are not already in the Arden Hills Zoning <br />Code. She passed out a memo written by Matthew Bachler regarding regulations on warehousing <br />uses within the TRC. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that she felt that the Code was unclear and asked that <br />warehousing be removed from pages 33 and 35. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden suggested that language be added stating that warehousing is only <br />allowed as an accessory use to manufacturing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated that table 5.2 indicates that buildings where manufacturing and <br />processing are a principal or accessory use, a minimum of 30 percent of the gross building square <br />footage must be in office use. She said that there is no way to interpret that differently. She <br />suggested that warehousing be taken out as an industrial use on page 33 as well as removing it <br />from page 35. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned if warehousing had to be in the same building as <br />manufacturing. She also questioned what temporary means. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding whether or not the Council wanted a building that is 30 <br />percent office and 70 percent warehouse. Council agreed that they did not want the definition to <br />be ambiguous. Consensus was to have staff work with the City Attorney to establish the <br />appropriate language within the Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes suggested that the Council discuss the gateway overlay. She stated that <br />the developers have said that people will not want to drive through industrial areas to get to their <br />million dollar homes. She felt the gateway overlay was too vague in the TRC. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant agreed and stated that he did not want the gateway overlay language to be vague. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes noted that the Code simply states that “more landscaping” will be <br />required and she questioned what that means. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the type and amount of landscaping <br />is at the discretion of staff and the Joint Development Authority. She indicated that there will be <br />more required than just enhanced landscaping. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden suggested that trees could be spaced differently than they are along the <br />Spine Road and that the lighting could also be different.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.