CCP 01-21-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 4. 1996 5 ,. " The applicant's property is 5,992 square feet larger than one acre; ~. . 4. The existing parking lot is a nonconforming parking lot in terms of setback and construction (i.e., gravel); 5. The proposed parking lot modifications would reduce the extent of the nonconformity of . the parking area; 6. The strict conformance to the 75 foot setback requirement would dramatically reduce the applicant's ability to bring the existing nonconforming parking lot into conformance and . generally would render this site unusable for the applicant; 7, The building addition would provide for handicap accessability to both levels of the structure and improve the existing from inside the structure; . 8. The building addition is architecturally compatible to the existing structure and is adequately screened from adjacent residential uses; 9. The building addition would not increase the level of use of the church; and . 10. The reduction of the minimum landscape lot area from 65 percent to 62 percent is acceptable due to its positive affect on traf1ic management, water quality, dust . elimination, and yard maintenance. With regard to the variance requests, Mr. Ringwald explained that to provide for any Ie reconfiguration requires some relieffrom the three setbacks. The applicant is requesting a 35 foot setback to the west, 60 feet to the south and 30 feet to the east. The applicant is also requesting a variance from the minimum landscape requirement from 65% to 62%. Mr. . Ringwald stated that in review of these variance requests, statT is supportive of minimizing the amount of variance by pulling the parking area as far away from the residential area as possible, which the applicant has done. Staff believes the building addition will improve safety and . accessibility and that from managing yard maintenance, the landscape requirement variance is reasonable. . Mr. Ringwald advised Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #96-23, Special Use Permit Amendment (building expansions and parking lot improvements) and Variances (Zoning . Ordinance, Section Vl, E, 6 and V, F, 7) as shown on the site plan (revised November 15, 1996), subject to the following conditions: . 1. Compliance with the letter from the City Engineer, dated November 21, 1996; 2. Approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District; 3. The smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for as short a time as feasible; . 4. Temporary ground cover, such as mulch, is used and permanent ground cover, such as sod, is established; 5. Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediments are employed; . 6. Fill is stabilized to accepted engineering standards, approved by the city engineer; 7. Provision ofa landscape performance bond (125%); and fI 8. Limitation of lighting to current levels and types. .