My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-29-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCP 11-29-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:46 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 11:28:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
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 PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3, 1999 DRAFT <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />staging area requirements was to eliminate long-term storage outside a building. Ms. <br />McMonigal stated that this was correct. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. McMonigal confirmed the removal of Commercial Recreation from the list of prohibited <br />uses in the draft Ordinance. Chair Erickson concurred and suggested the inclusion of casinos in <br />this list. <br /> <br />With regard to the staging area requirements, Commissioner Duchenes asked if vehicles should <br />be limited as well. Commissioner Galatowitsch noted that the first line in this paragraph was not <br />a sentence and suggested that it be reworded. Ms. McMonigal stated that the fIrst line of this <br />paragraph was the definition of a staging area and suggested it be moved to the Definition section <br />of the Ordinance. She noted that the outdoor storage of vehicles was restricted in the next <br />sentence of this paragraph. Commissioner Nelson suggested that the word equipment be added <br />to these restrictions as well. Ms. McMonigal agreed. Commissioner Sand suggested that the <br />definition be amended to state: "Any exterior area that is used to load, unload, stack, pile, store, <br />or assemble materials, equipment or vehicles..." <br /> <br />With regard to item 2, d, of the special requirements section, Commissioner Sand asked what the <br />design review was intended to include and who would perform this review. Ms. Randall <br />explained that if a use was a special use, the design review would be part of the special use <br />review. If the use was permitted, the design review would be part of the building permit review. <br />Commissioner Sand noted that some cities have review committees to ensure proper consistency <br />of proposals. Commissioner Nelson suggested that the second sentence of item 2, d, be amended <br />to read, "Design review by the City will include..." Ms. McMonigal concurred. e <br /> <br />Ms. McMonigal asked if the Plarming Commission had any concerns regarding the Development <br />Standards section ofthe Ordinance. With regard to the District Requirements Chart, <br />Commissioner Baker confirmed that parking was not covered in the lot coverage ratio, rather, it <br />would be covered in the landscaping ratio. Ms. McMonigal stated that the City of Arden Hills <br />did not include in its Zoning Ordinance a ratio for impervious surface coverage, which would <br />include a parking lot. However, the Ordinance did include a minimum landscape coverage ratio, <br />which, under the traditional alternative, would be 25 percent. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson confirmed that the proposed difference between the traditional and downtown <br />alternatives was that the downtown option would encourage buildings to be built to the front of <br />the lots. He asked Ms. McMonigal if allowing an increased density with more lot coverage and <br />less landscaping would facilitate the downtown atmosphere. Ms. McMonigal noted that the <br />downtown alternative also suggested a smaller lot area. With regard to Chair Erickson's <br />question, she stated that she was not sure that this was what the City of Arden Hills wanted. She <br />suggested that the City step back and do an area plan in order to further consider other <br />alternatives and design guidelines. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson pointed out that Ramsey COllilty would be acquiring 36 acres of land to construct <br />their maintenance facility. The development could be a large facility with several buildings and <br />it may not be appropriate to allow the setbacks proposed in the downtown alternative. Ms. <br />McMonigal noted that the Ordinance did not discuss the placement of buildings and suggested <br />that this could be added to the requirements. However, she felt that this may be a larger issue <br />that may require additional consideration. She noted that many items come into play with the <br />placement of a building, such as the location of streets, which has not been established. <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.