Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 10 <br /> ■ Section 1 I (A) #1. No building permit or other permit pertaining to the use of land or <br /> buildings shall be issued unless such building is designed and arranged to conform to the <br /> provisions of this ordinance. <br /> Mr. Cronin indicated applicant appealed the building permit denial to the Planning Commission <br /> in November, 2000. In December, 2000, the Arden Hills City Council affirmed the decision of <br /> the Building Official to deny a building permit for the reconstruction of a tower on this site. <br /> Mr. Cronin explained at this time, the applicant had submitted an application for a concept PUD <br /> for the construction of two office buildings, structured parking and the reconstruction of a 750 <br /> foot tower. The applicant had submitted the following information a wetlands delineation and a <br /> booklet of information and plans. <br /> Mr. Cronin reviewed the PUD Concept Plan which the City had reviewed as detailed in the staff <br /> report. Mr. Cronin noted a Concept PUD was a discussion process that allowed the applicant to <br /> present preliminary ideas to the City and to receive feedback from the City. No public hearing <br /> was held on this portion of the application so the City can not take action. The Planning <br /> Commission offered comments and suggestions to the applicant, which were then forwarded to <br /> the City Council to do the same. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or City <br /> Council were binding to future stages of the PUD process. <br /> Mr. Cronin explained if the applicant so chose, they may accept the comments of the City <br /> Council and make formal application for a Master PUD, followed by a Final PUD before <br /> construction occurs on the site. <br /> Mr. Cronin stated special requirements for the Gateway Business District were outlined in <br /> Section 5 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance. <br /> Mr. Cronin reviewed the allowable use by explaining in the Gateway Business District, "office" <br /> was a permitted principal use. Section 5 (M) #3 outlines specific requirements for the District for <br /> allowable uses. There was a stipulation by this Section that states that office uses cannot occupy <br /> less than 25% or more than 50% of a project's total floor area. The Welsh Developments along <br /> Gateway Boulevard were limited in their office component to 20% (warehouse for the remaining <br /> area) so that more office use could be accommodated on the prominent corner property (I-694 & <br /> 1-3 5W). A Master PUD for that property, proposing 100% office build-out, was approved earlier <br /> this year. This proposal also proposed 100% office, 50% above the maximum permitted in the <br /> G-B District. <br /> Mr. Cronin stated a 750-foot antenna tower was also proposed as a use on this property. The <br /> antenna was not accessory to the office use on the property. It was considered a principal use <br /> since it did not support or in any way related to the office use on the property. Section 6 (I) #2 <br /> stated that antennas were allowed only, "...on property containing a principal use to which the <br /> antenna, dish antenna or tower is accessory". Therefore, the proposed antenna was not a <br /> permitted principal use in the G-B District. <br /> Mr. Cronin presented the Development Standards, structure height, by explaining the District <br /> Requirements Chart of the Zoning Ordinance stated a maximum structure height of 35 feet for <br /> the District. However, Section 5 (M) #5 (b) contradicts this by stating that, "multi-story buildings <br /> will be encouraged", "the use of stepped buildings in encouraged" and "the location of buildings <br /> relative to their heights will consider views"within the Gateway Business District. The intent of <br />