My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-25-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 06-25-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2015 7:46:45 AM
Creation date
8/13/2015 4:56:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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 PLANNING COMMISSION—NNE 6, 2001 11 <br /> the District was to promote high quality, large-scale development and take full advantage of the <br /> site's location. The proposed height of the two office buildings was 56 feet each, exceeding the <br /> 35-foot maximum for the District. The proposed antenna was 750 feet in height where only a <br /> maximum of 75 feet was permitted, if it was accessory to the primary use on the property. <br /> Mr. Cronin presented the structure setbacks by stating the building setback requirements for the <br /> District were as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and <br /> rear property lines. The front yard was defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The <br /> proposed bisects the site although the property lines did not. The proposed office buildings meet <br /> the setback requirements from both the proposed street and I-694, as shown on the plans. The <br /> proposed accessory structure below the antenna did not meet the Ordinance requirements since it <br /> had been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front yards in this proposal were considered that <br /> property which abuts the proposed street(on both the North and South side) and the property <br /> abutting I-694. Any accessory structures on this property would have to be located in the side <br /> yard of the office buildings. <br /> Mr. Cronin presented by structure exteriors by explaining the Zoning Ordinance required that <br /> exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The <br /> exterior materials proposed for the office buildings and accessory structure are pre-finished <br /> aluminum,brick and glass. Pre-finished aluminum was not a material permitted by the Zoning <br /> Ordinance. The applicant had supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office buildings. <br /> Although the accessory structure had been described in the narrative, there were no plans <br /> showing it in elevation, which should had been submitted. <br /> Mr. Cronin summarized the traffic study g statin the traffic study for the District was completed <br /> by BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round <br /> Lake Road within design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing <br /> BRW's study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake Companies <br /> in the northeast quadrant of I-35W and I-694. The applicant obtained another traffic analysis <br /> from Biko and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of the proposed development of the tower <br /> site. <br /> Mr. Cronin explained the conclusions of the traffic study stated that the 96/W. Round Lake Road <br /> intersection would operate at acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake <br /> and Arden Towers projects. There would also be less than desirable operations at the 96/1-35W <br /> ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these areas. Biko suggested <br /> that improvements be made to the 96/1-35W bridge and improvements be made at the 96/10 <br /> intersection. Both of these areas are under review with Ramsey County and the State although <br /> they may not be scheduled for quite some time. <br /> Mr. Cronin summarized the parking requirements by explaining by the Zoning Ordinance,the <br /> parking requirement for an office development was 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. <br /> There was 265,514 square feet of office space,requiring 1,062 parking spaces which was <br /> satisfied by the proposal. <br /> Mr. Cronin stated the parking area includes surface parking and two, two level parking ramps. <br /> There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property <br /> lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps were not considered to be principal structures <br /> so they were subject to the accessory structure or parking setback requirements, since the Zoning <br /> Ordinance was unclear on this issue. The parking setbacks were more stringent and, therefore, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.