11-03-21-Planning Commission - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 6, 2021 5 Chair Vijums stated he did believe this property sale was in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which was the request before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-023 recommending that a potential sale of City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as presented in the September 8, 2021 and October 6, 2021 Reports to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). C. Planning Case 21-024; City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendment to Sections 1320.06, District Requirements Chart and 1325.05, Design Standards for Revisions to the B-2, General Business District and B-3, Service Business District – Public Hearing Senior Planner Jagoe stated starting in 2018, the City Council began discussions on possible amendments with regards to the design standards and placement of buildings for the B-2 Zoning District. The B-2 District generally includes the properties along the County Road E corridor between Highway 51 and Lexington Avenue North. The district is a mix of new and older buildings and primarily retail, service, and office uses. For new development in this district, the Zoning Code identifies design standards that regulate placement of the building and parking areas. The City Council’s initial review involved discussions on the front yard setback in business districts and consideration for amending the language from 20 feet to 50 feet to be consistent with the B-3 District. In addition, the Council reviewed removal of two parking setback requirements that would allow a Developer more flexibility in the placement of buildings and parking areas in the B-2 District. Senior Planner Jagoe commented from this initial work session, the City Council also identified additional concerns with building façade requirements. In 2019 and 2020, the City Council held two more work sessions whereby providing feedback and direction to staff on revisions for consideration in the B-2 District. The Council requested staff review the transparency requirements for commercial developments as well as the use of other types of coating on glass as a means of complying with ordinance requirements. Senior Planner Jagoe reported at the work session meeting on December 21, 2020, the City Council discussed the Staff suggested amendments regarding front yard setback and removal of design standard language in order to allow more flexibility in placement of the buildings in B-2 District. The consensus was to remove a sentence within Commercial Façade Transparency, Section 1325.05, Subd. 8, F.1 that allowed discretion for waiving the transparency requirements. The rational was that this flexibility already exists through the Planned Unit Development review and a Developer could suggest alternate considerations. For façade transparency, the City will continue to require 50% of all first level building facades that front a public street to be comprised of transparent windows or doors. The language to be removed was a second requirement of 20% for all facades that are reasonably visible from the right-of-way. With the language amendments to the building and parking setbacks it is anticipated that there will be fewer issues on design challenges with building orientation and the back side of a building facing the public street. The proposed changes still ensures that the appearance of blank walls would not Draft