CCP 05-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MARCH 26, 2001 9 t Councilmember Rem asked about making it an accessory building. She questioned whether they had a number limiting how many they can have. Mr. Carlson responded there is a maximum of two smaller lots overall. All buildings will be considered principal buildings. Mr. Shardlow stated a daycare standing alone would not be permitted at this point. He asked if it could be added in the event a daycare is one use that they would entertain as part of the campus. Councilmember Larson asked about an accessory building. Ms. Chaput responded it is defined as a shed or garage on a principal property. She stated it has the same meaning as in the other districts. Mayor Probst stated part of the difficulty is that it would have to be owned or controlled by the primary user. Councilmember Larson asked if an accessory use is permitted on this PUD other than the parking decks. Ms. Chaput responded that it is an issue because the current zoning does not define parking structure. She noted the Planning Commission felt it would appropriate to deal with it as an accessory structure. Councilmember Larson stated the kind of building they are talking about would not be a accessory building. Ms. Chaput stated this was incorrect. She noted that under the PUD the Guidant campus does not have one main building and the rest accessory buildings. Mayor Probst stated if they have a corporate user who wants to build its own, the user might want another person to own and operate it. He noted they would then need a separate owner and lot. Councilmember Aplikowski asked if anyone was concerned about the 18 months. Councilmember Rem stated she has concerns about using the landscaping and screening on the site. She noted that screening has become a major issue because of the Welsh development to the north. She added part of the discussion about berming and landscaping might work for a general parking lot, but trash-handling etc. is more sensitive. She stated there seems to be conflicting sections about what is appropriate screening. Mayor Probst asked if under their PUD ordinance would any construction that should occur have to come back for site plan approval. Ms. Chaput responded any building has to come for a final PUD. She stated the council would evaluate it according to these design standards. Mayor Probst stated he really has no concern except about an increase in EFIS. He noted he is compelled not to move from the position of the Planning Commission. He added he is comfortable with what they are approving and they have a further opportunity to fine-tune some of this.