Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 29,1999 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Fences must blend into the landscape, Wood, brick, stone or wrought iron are <br />encouraged, If chain link is allowed by the City Council, it must have black or dark <br />green vinyl coating, <br />All other requirements of Section VI.E. must be followed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she disagreed with the requirement that chain link fences <br />be vinyl coated. She indicated that this was not a requirement anywhere else in the City and she <br />questioned the purpose of the restriction in this Zoning District. Ms. McMonigal explained that <br />aesthetics had been taken into consideration and the intent was to discourage non-decorative <br />fencing, Councilmember Malone pointed out that this was a special restriction that would not <br />necessarily apply to residential areas. He did not see the requirement of vinyl coating chain link <br />fences as a problem since the aesthetics of this Zoning District was important, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski noted that the fencing currently in place on the Army National <br />Guard property was not aesthetically pleasing and would surround the Civic Center District. She <br />asked if the City would have control over this fencing and if it would be subject to compliance <br />with the Ordinance. Councilmember Malone stated that since the fencing was on the National <br />Guard property, the City would not have control over it. Ms, McMonigal concurred and <br />indicated that the restrictions within the Ordinance would apply to any new construction in the <br />Civic Center District. <br /> <br />With regard to building exteriors, Ms, McMonigal indicated that the Ordinance stated exterior <br />building materials shall be of brick, stone, glass or any combination thereof. The Planning . <br />Commission had discussed limiting the percentage of glass to be used, however, a final decision <br />had not been made and this portion of the Ordinance had not been changed, The Ordinance <br />provided more detail and attention to exterior lighting and required any development proposal to <br />include a lighting plan, <br /> <br />Ms, McMonigal highlighted other issues that were raised at the Planning COlPIllission meeting, <br />Under the landscaping and screening special requirements section, item number four required <br />that special attention to screening from roadways must be given. Screening along Highway 96 <br />must be consistent in appearance and materials, Ms, McMonigal noted that the Ordinance did <br />not define what these materials must be in order to be consistent. Additionally, item number five <br />stated that special attention must be given to the Gateway entrances at Highway 96 and Hamline <br />A venue, and at Highway 96 and Lexington A venue as specified in the community gateway <br />study, Ms, McMonigal stated that requirements for consistency may actually be Public Works <br />issues. She was not sure if these requirements should remain a part of the Ordinance, or whether <br />the word consistency should be replaced with a more appropriate term, One other option would <br />be to define the word consistency in the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst pointed out that it was likely for the new City Hall to be the first development <br />within the Civic Center District, He indicated that this development will establish the baseline <br />for the consistency standards, Although the new City Hall development may not address every <br />requirement, it will provide a starting point to define the expectations of the District. Ms. . <br />McMonigal agreed that the consistency requirements of the Ordinance will make more sense <br />once the City Hall is constructed, <br />