CCP 11-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3, 1999 DRAFT 12 , staging area requirements was to eliminate long-term storage outside a building. Ms. McMonigal stated that this was correct. e Ms. McMonigal confirmed the removal of Commercial Recreation from the list of prohibited uses in the draft Ordinance. Chair Erickson concurred and suggested the inclusion of casinos in this list. With regard to the staging area requirements, Commissioner Duchenes asked if vehicles should be limited as well. Commissioner Galatowitsch noted that the first line in this paragraph was not a sentence and suggested that it be reworded. Ms. McMonigal stated that the fIrst line of this paragraph was the definition of a staging area and suggested it be moved to the Definition section of the Ordinance. She noted that the outdoor storage of vehicles was restricted in the next sentence of this paragraph. Commissioner Nelson suggested that the word equipment be added to these restrictions as well. Ms. McMonigal agreed. Commissioner Sand suggested that the definition be amended to state: "Any exterior area that is used to load, unload, stack, pile, store, or assemble materials, equipment or vehicles..." With regard to item 2, d, of the special requirements section, Commissioner Sand asked what the design review was intended to include and who would perform this review. Ms. Randall explained that if a use was a special use, the design review would be part of the special use review. If the use was permitted, the design review would be part of the building permit review. Commissioner Sand noted that some cities have review committees to ensure proper consistency of proposals. Commissioner Nelson suggested that the second sentence of item 2, d, be amended to read, "Design review by the City will include..." Ms. McMonigal concurred. e Ms. McMonigal asked if the Plarming Commission had any concerns regarding the Development Standards section ofthe Ordinance. With regard to the District Requirements Chart, Commissioner Baker confirmed that parking was not covered in the lot coverage ratio, rather, it would be covered in the landscaping ratio. Ms. McMonigal stated that the City of Arden Hills did not include in its Zoning Ordinance a ratio for impervious surface coverage, which would include a parking lot. However, the Ordinance did include a minimum landscape coverage ratio, which, under the traditional alternative, would be 25 percent. Chair Erickson confirmed that the proposed difference between the traditional and downtown alternatives was that the downtown option would encourage buildings to be built to the front of the lots. He asked Ms. McMonigal if allowing an increased density with more lot coverage and less landscaping would facilitate the downtown atmosphere. Ms. McMonigal noted that the downtown alternative also suggested a smaller lot area. With regard to Chair Erickson's question, she stated that she was not sure that this was what the City of Arden Hills wanted. She suggested that the City step back and do an area plan in order to further consider other alternatives and design guidelines. Chair Erickson pointed out that Ramsey COllilty would be acquiring 36 acres of land to construct their maintenance facility. The development could be a large facility with several buildings and it may not be appropriate to allow the setbacks proposed in the downtown alternative. Ms. McMonigal noted that the Ordinance did not discuss the placement of buildings and suggested that this could be added to the requirements. However, she felt that this may be a larger issue that may require additional consideration. She noted that many items come into play with the placement of a building, such as the location of streets, which has not been established. e