CCP 11-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3, 1999 DRAFT 11 Commissioner Sand asked why Institutional Housing was listed as a special use. He felt that this sort of use would fit more Mthin a multi-family housing residential district than a downtown district. Ms. McMonigal explained that some housing had been anticipated in the Civic Center District. Commissioner Baker noted that there are some downtown businesses in other cities that contain retail operations on the first floor with housing on upper levels. Ms. McMonigal stated that this sort of use would be different from Institutional Housing. She noted that clinics were listed in the Land Use Chart as not permitted and are similar institutional type uses. Commissioner Duchenes asked how assisted living facilities compare to institutional housing. Ms. McMonigal stated that assisted living facilities are typically residential. However, they can be considered institutional, depending upon the level of care that is provided. Commissioner Duchenes suggested that it may be acceptable to include some type of senior housing in the District. Ms. McMonigal noted that the City may not want a large concentration of non-tax paying businesses. Commissioner Baker stated that most senior housing facilities pay taxes. Ms. McMonigal agreed and added that this sort of use combined Mth others would create an attractive mixed use environment. Chair Erickson agreed that the intent of the Zoning District was to have a variety of mixed uses so as not to create an office park atmosphere. Commissioner Sand noted that the City of New Brighton has done a nice job of mixing a housing facility within the downtown area. Commissioner Nelson confirmed that Institutional Housing should remain listed as a special use. The Planning Commission concurred. Ms. McMonigal asked the Planning Commission for their opinion on allowing clinics in the District. Commissioner Nelson asked what was typically found in other cities. Ms. McMonigal stated that she was not sure, however, a clinic in a downtown atmosphere may be appropriate. Commissioner Baker stated that clinics were similar to office and retail uses. He felt that if offices were to be permitted uses, and retail services special uses, clinics should also be listed as a special use. The Planning Commission concurred. Ms. McMonigal suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the use of antenna, dishes or towers, which was listed as not permitted. She indicated that the Prohibited Uses section of the Ordinance prohibits the use oftowers for telecommunications. Only antennas that are flush, parallel, unobtrusive and painted the same color as the building will be allowed. Additionally, during the Comprehensive Plan update, the suggestion was made to place restrictions on the entire TCAAP area. Therefore, she assumed that telecommunication towers would not be appropriate. She suggested that this use category be changed to a special use. Commissioner Baker suggested that antennas be restricted to only being installed as an accessory use for the property. Ms. McMonigal agreed and suggested the use category be changed to a special accessory use. The Planning Commission concurred. Commissioner Sand confirmed that the following changes had been made to the Land Use Chart: Antenna, Dish or Tower to special accessory use; Clinic to special use; Club or Lodge to special use; Commercial Recreation to special use; and Hotel/Motel to special use. Ms. McMonigal asked if the Planning Commission had any questions regarding the special requirements section of the draft Ordinance. Chair Erickson confirmed that the intent ofthe