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—JUNE 6, 2001 13 <br /> property for some time. Three detention basins were provided to collect storm water runoff, <br /> designed to NURP standards so that the storm water is treated prior to discharge. By this proposal, <br /> the wetland on the west side of the property will be eliminated and mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. The <br /> mitigation area would be provided on the east side of the larger wetland and within the three <br /> retention basins constructed on the site. The larger wetland on the eastern portion of the site would <br /> not be disturbed with development. The applicant had prepared a wetland delineation report. <br /> Approval of the plan, following City Council approval, would be required by Rice Creek <br /> Watershed District. <br /> Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on <br /> May 9, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by July 8, 2001 <br /> (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day <br /> review period. The additional review period would extend to August 7, 2001. The City may, with <br /> the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the August 7, 2001 date. <br /> Mr. Cronin stated if the City denied the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason <br /> for the denial at the time that it denies the request." <br /> Mr. Cronin presented staff's preliminary comments on Planning Case#01-10 based on the <br /> following: <br /> 1. It should be clarified if the proposed antenna tower is 700 feet (per the plans) or 750 feet in <br /> height (per the narrative); <br /> 2. The antenna tower could not be reconstructed for the following reasons: <br /> ■ The tower is currently a nonconforming structure that can not be rebuilt without <br /> conforming with the Zoning Ordinance; <br /> ■ The tower is not permitted as a principal use on the property; <br /> ■ The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height of 75 feet; <br /> ■ The tower is nearer to the property line than the height of the tower. <br /> 3. No more than 50% of a project's total floor area may be office; <br /> 4. The height of the proposed office buildings shall not exceed 35 feet; <br /> 5. The conflicting Zoning Ordinance text regarding the maximum height requirement and <br /> percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City; <br /> 6. The accessory structure for the antenna must be located in the side or rear yard, not the front, <br /> and additional elevation information is needed to properly evaluate the structure; <br /> 7. Exterior materials for the office buildings and accessory structure include pre-finished <br /> aluminum which is not identified as a permitted material; <br /> 8. A pedestrian trail easement by Round Lake would be requested as part of this development; <br /> 9. Surface and ramped parking requires a setback of 50 feet from the proposed and existing street <br /> which is not met; <br /> 10. The proposed street should be public with a required right-of-way width of no less than 60 feet <br /> for a local street, since it is located on an existing 66 foot public utility easement; <br /> 11. The development of the property requires direct access to Gateway Boulevard which it <br /> currently does not have; <br /> 12. Consideration should be made for improvements to the Hwy 96/10 and 96/1-3 5W intersections <br /> as per the traffic study; <br /> 13. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should be <br /> considered to accommodate development; and <br /> 14. The applicant must obtain all necessary reviews and permits from Rice Creek Watershed <br /> District. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.