My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 09-27-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CC 09-27-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:41 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 2:39:14 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.
/
15
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
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case <br />#99-04, Neighborhood Business District, conditioned on the word "business" being added after <br />the word "related" in Section A, 2, c. And that staff further define taverns, either to be consistent <br />with existing State Law definitions, or to establish its own definition for the purposes of this <br />Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall stated that statTrecommends the City Council approve Planning Case #99-04 and <br />direct staff to publish Ordinance #3 I 5 with the modifications as stated. A summary for <br />publication was attached to the staff report. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted that the growing notion of urban villages, similar to the proposed <br />Neighborhood Business District, tend to pull the businesses closer to the streets with the parking <br />to the rear. However, the setbacks described in the proposed Ordinance do not seem to <br />encourage this. He asked if this had been discussed by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Ms. Randall stated that at the Planning Commission level there had not been much discussion <br />regarding parking to the front versus building to the front. The discussions regarding setbacks <br />had centered more around building setbacks from the residents than from the streets. The <br />Planning Commission chose to allow a 20 foot front yard setback which is less than the setback <br />allowed for any other Business Districts. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Prohst stated that a new building being constructed in Roseville at the corner of County <br />Road D and Fairview A venue is more in keeping with the current model of the type of <br />development being discussed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if a developer of a Neighborhood Business District property would <br />still have the option of using a planned unit development in order to accomplish a type of <br />development being described by Mayor Probst. Ms. Randall stated that a property owner would <br />have thc option of going through the planned unit development process it they felt that the <br />Neighborhood Business District would fit and could design a development that would meet the <br />intent being discussed. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that he was very happy with the proposed Ordinance and its intent. He was <br />concerned that if the District was setup with the standard setbacks, a typical developer will use <br />these setbacks as a baseline. However, ifthe District were to have requirements that would allow <br />a development similar to the new construction on County Road D and Fairview A venue, this <br />would allow a starting point that would not require requests for variances in order to achieve this <br />sort of development. He stated that the Java Jungle site will be difficult to deal with and he was <br />not sure anyone would be willing to remove the current building and redevelop the site. He felt <br />that thc City should encourage building to the front of the property with the parking to the rear. <br />Having the building backing up to a residential area with a large expanse of pavement to the <br />front would not be pedestrian fricndly. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated that the Planning Commission had considered whether it would be <br />preferable to have a building or a parking lot adjacent to the residential areas. The Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.