CCP 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 3, 2001 14 Ms. Chaput indicated the Zoning Ordinance lists a number of different dwelling types that are permitted in various districts of the City. She continued by stating typically, multiple family or . two-family dwelling units are the more appropriate dwelling type to mix with a business in a district such as this. Ms. Chaput noted that since this is a business district, some restrictions should be placed on permitting dwelling units as a sole use on a property. She noted, dwelling units should be mixed with a business use to ensure that the use continues to meet the intent of the district and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Chaput explained, currently, the neighborhood business district does not permit any types of dwelling units. She stated all of the dwelling unit types, and their corresponding district regulations, are shown in the "Dwelling" section of the Land Use Chart, Section 5 (E), below. Ms. Chaput indicated staff proposes that "Multiple Family" and "Two-Fanlily" dwellings be allowed in the neighborhood business district through a special use permit. She stated that by making this use a special use in the district, an additional restriction can be placed on it to ensure that dwelling units can not be the sole use on the property, as proposed in Section 5 (H) #3. Ms. Chaput reported that by adding in certain dwelling units as permitted uses in this district, other language Section 5 (H) needs to be addressed. She noted this is specific to where the text references certain requirements when "adjacent to residential uses". Ms. Chaput explained this could have negative implications to a development if the language is not anlended to ensure that the residential reference applies to uses outside of the NB District. Ms. Chaput stated at the previous Planning Cormnission, staff was asked to define the use "Mixed Residential Types", as shown in the Land Use Chart. She indicated staff did not locate this term anywhere else within the Zoning Ordinance and was able to find a definition to match it from Ordinances of surrounding communities. Ms. Chaput stated staffrecormnends that this term be stricken from the Zoning Ordinance instead of proposing a definition that may indirectly include or prohibit certain uses. She added it also appears that there is some uncertainty in what this term should mean, creating a great deal of difficulty in developing a definition. e Ms. Chaput reviewed the overall additions and changes of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and noted staff recommends approval of Plamling Case #00-41, anlending Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented in the "Proposed Amendments to Section 5 ofthe Zoning Ordinance" section of this memorandum. Cormnissioner Sand asked that the residential zoning districts be added to Section 5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Chaput noted this change would be completed as it was an oversight. Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Chair Baker indicated he was comfortable with the language changes within this Ordinance. He stated this allows for those difficult parcels near residential areas to be developed. Commissioner Galatowitsch moved, seconded by Cormnissioner Zirmnerman, to approve Planning Case #00-41, Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 5 (E) Land Use Chart and (II) #3, Special Requirements for the Neighborhood Business District of the Zoning Ordinance #291 as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). e REPORTS