CC 09-27-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 4 Commission had believed it would be better to have a building with landscaping adjacent to homes. She agreed that some of the lots being considered for rezoning would lend themselves to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. However, those lots located on busier intersections would most likely see more vehicle traffic and the Planning Commission felt it more suitable for the parking to be to the front of these lots. With regard to the property at the northwest corner of County Road D and Cleveland Avenue, Mayor Probst stated that the owner ofthis New Brighton site has opted to rcmove the old building and build a new one. The building will be to the rear of the site with the parking to the front. From an outcome standpoint, this had not been what he had envisioned for the Neighborhood Business District. However, he felt that the proposed 20 foot setback may be acceptable considering that it does allow a building to be 30 feet closer than allowed in any other Business District. He stated that he was comfortable with the remainder of the Ordinance and requested the opinions ofthe other Councilmembers regarding the setbacks. Councilmember Larson stated that he was comfortable with the proposed Ordinance as long as staIT was able to offer the option to a developer to develop a site similar to the site in Roseville at County Road D and Fairview Avenue. Couneilmember Aplikowski stated that she would miss neighborhood taverns as she believed that these were good gathering placcs for families. She found it interesting that there had been no definition for the word tavcrn. Her only concern regarding parking was that when parking is placed to the rear of a business it can be difficult to access witll the number of turns needed to be made. She felt that if parking is to be to the rear it must be easily accessed and there must be plenty of space. She stated that she prefers buildings being placed to the rear with landscaped parking lots to the front. Councilmember Larson asked why mining would be allowed with a special use permit in the Neighborhood Business District as well as all other Zoning Districts. He was unable to envision what sort of mining use would fit in a residential area. Ms. Randall stated she believed that there are certain parameters within the State Law that require the City to allow mining in all districts to a certain extent. Limitations can be placed which was the reason for the special use permit requirement. Councilmember Larson noted that the Neighborhood Business District allowed research facilities with a special use permit. He stated that when he thinks of a neighborhood business, he thinks of a business that provides neighborhood services. He felt that some of the uses allowed with special use permits do not fit in the category of being a neighborhood service business. He asked if this had been discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Randall stated that the uses that would be permitted or not permitted had been determined by the Plarming Commission. The Planning Commission had been provided forms to fill out to state their preferences. This information was collected by staff and staff included or excluded those uses according to the overwhelming responses. She stated that some definitions of uses where quite broad and may include uses tllat could be acceptable in a Neighborhood Business District.