CC 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 29,2001 7 MOTION: Counci1member Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-34, variance for a second wall sign for Metro Community Credit Union, located at 3533 N. Lexington Avenue. The motion carried (3-1). (Larson) . 3. Case #00-41, City of Arden Hills, Neighborhood Business District Language Amendment, Formal Ordinance #324 Mr. Lynch explained the City requested that Section 5 (E) and (H) #3 Zoning Ordinance #291 be amended to allow dwelling units in conjunction with a business in the Neighborhood Business District, with certain restrictions. On September 27, 1999, the language for a new zoning district, the neighborhood business district, was adopted by the City Council and inserted into the City's Zoning Ordinance. While reviewing the proposed rezoning for seven groups of properties for this district at the November 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recognized that the neighborhood business district language did not permit any types of dwelling units. At this time, the Planning Commission directed staff to propose an Ordinance amendment addressing this issue. . Mr. Lynch stated the Zoning Ordinance listed a number of different dwelling types that were permitted in various districts of the City. Typically, multiple family or two-family dwelling units were more appropriate dwelling types to mix with a business in a district such as this. Since this was a business district, some restrictions should be placed on permitting dwelling units as a sole use on a property. Currently, the neighborhood business district did not permit any type of dwelling units. Staff proposed that "Multiple Family" and "Two-Family" dwellings be allowed in the neighborhood business district through a special use permit. By making this a special use in the district, an additional restriction could be placed on it to ensure that dwelling units could not be the sole use of the property, as proposed in Section 5 (H) #3. By adding in certain dwelling units as permitted uses in this district, other language section 5 (H) needed to be addressed. This was specific to where the text referenced certain requirements when "adjacent to residential uses". This could have negative implications to a development if the language was not amended to ensure that the residential reference applied to uses outside of the NB District. Mr. Lynch explained the Planning Commission directed staff to define the use "Mixed Residential Types", as shown in the Land Use Chart. Staff did not locate this term anywhere else within the Zoning Ordinance and was unable to find a definition to match it from Ordinances of surrounding communities. The Planning Commission recommended this term be stricken from the Zoning Ordinance instead of proposing a definition that may indirectly include or prohibit certain uses. Also, there was some uncertainty in what this term should mean, creating a great deal of difficulty in developing a definition. . Mr. Lynch stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #00-31, amending Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented in the "Proposed Amendments to Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance" section, adopting formal Ordinance #324. He indicated pursuant to Section VIII, D, 1, b of the Zoning Ordinance a ". ..four-fifths (4/5's) majority ofthe full Council was required for action to amend the Zoning Ordinance. In the event an application