Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—APRIL 4, 2001 11 <br /> Ms. Chaput reviewed the site plan parking structure explaining the Planning Commission had <br /> had some debate over how to define and evaluate parking structures within the City since the <br /> Ordinance was unclear on this issue. It was obvious that a parking structure cannot be considered <br /> a principal structure (conducting a principal use) on the campus and should not be evaluated as <br /> such. However, it was still a structure and, in light of other proposals that have been before the <br /> Planning Commission in the last few months, was evaluated according to the "structure" <br /> requirements of maximum height. Staff would continue to recommend that the setbacks be <br /> evaluated according to surface parking setbacks since it continues to be the same use being <br /> performed, even if it was at a different height. <br /> The previous review of this case found that there were no outstanding issues, in terms of: access; <br /> circulation; materials; floor area ratio; lot coverage; landscaping; and setbacks. The main issue of <br /> discussion was the proposed height for the parking structure. <br /> Height <br /> The Zoning Ordinance in Section 5, F, 4, states that the height of a structure in the I-1 zoning <br /> district shall not exceed 35 feet. (Please note that the I-2 and I-FLEX zones allow for a height of <br /> 45 feet). <br /> The proposed parking structure, at its highest elevation, is 10'-8" above the maximum height for <br /> the District. This proposal typically does require a variance review. However, this structure was <br /> within a PUD and, therefore, on advice of the City Attorney, should be evaluated according to <br /> the underlying zoning and proposed "flexibility" to the Zoning Ordinance language. <br /> Ms. Chaput explained during the review of recent PUD applications, it had been made apparent <br /> that the Zoning Ordinance language was vague regarding flexibility of standards within a PUD. <br /> Therefore, the flexibility in a PUD was addressed through a "variance" review, keeping in mind <br /> the potential benefits or trade-offs that could be made for allowing a structure that does not meet <br /> the underlying Ordinance restrictions. The City Attorney has advised staff that this was not a true <br />