Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3, 1999 <br /> <br />DRAFT 14 <br /> <br />Commissioner Baker noted that many current retail businesses over-build parking lots to attract e <br />more shoppers. He suggested that if there was to be more coverage of the lots with buildings, the <br />development may be platted Vvith smaller lots. He felt that if the area was to be pedestrian <br />friendly, the buildings should not be placed far apart with large parking lots between them. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson stated that a typical developer will not build more parking than is required by the <br />Ordinance, with the exception of big box retail centers which Vvill not be allowed within the <br />District. Additionally, not allowing parking to the front of buildings would deter this type of <br />development. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson noted that two large structures were already being proposed for this <br />District, the City Hall and the Ramsey County maintenance facility. It had been his <br />understanding that these sort of developments would be setback further from the streets. He <br />asked if staff had discussed with Ramsey COllilty the setback for the facility from Highway 96. <br />Ms. Randall stated that this had not been discussed with Ramsey County. It was her <br />llilderstanding that the County was in the process of doing a space analysis to determine what <br />size buildings will be needed. It was her belief that, if the facility was placed on an internal road, <br />the offices would be to the front with maintenance to the rear. Ms. McMonigal noted that the <br />Army National Guard has a building along Hamline Avenue. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson noted that the Army National Guard structure will not be a long term use within <br />this Zoning District. With regard to the setbacks, he indicated that the initial intent of this <br />Zoning District was to create a defined image for a downtown which Arden Hills currently does e <br />not have. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked ifthe Ordinance addressed the setbacks from Highway 96. Ms. Randall <br />stated that the Ordinance did include a comment regarding the setback from the easement line <br />because the property line goes to the center of Highway 96. <br /> <br />Ms. McMonigal suggested that there could be a separate setback requirement for Highway 96. <br />She indicated that the setback for the City Hall was plarmed to be 60 feet from the easement line <br />with parking along side the building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked Ms. McMonigal if she preferred the traditional or downtown <br />alternative. Ms. McMonigal stated that there were many conflicting ideas between the two <br />alternatives. She noted that from Highway 96, heading north, there were tiers ofland that will <br />make a difference in how much any structure will be seen from the Highway. The area that <br />Ramsey County has acquired is lower than Highway 96. Ms. McMonigal suggested that the City <br />create a set of downtown standards that could be established now, with modifications being made <br />as needed. She urged that the City continue to study the options. <br /> <br />Commissioner Nelson asked ifthe intent was to complete the Zoning Ordinance this evening. <br />Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson suggested that the Plarming <br />Commission approve the downtown standards with the modifications suggested earlier and a 60- <br />foot parking setback. e <br /> <br />Chair Erickson suggested that item c, 4 on page four of the Ordinance be modified to state no <br />parking to the front of buildings. He also suggested tI1at item nwnber nine of the District <br />