My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 01-29-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 01-29-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:30 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
155
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 />1. The proposed outlots, A and B, do not meet the minimum requirements for a <br />developable lot and will not be developed in the future, as platted; <br />2. All proposed easements, newly created or vacated as per the submitted plan, must be <br />properly filed and recorded with Ramsey County and proof of this action provided to <br />the City; and <br />3. Application must be made for a final plat no later than three moths after action is <br />taken on this application by the City Councilor the preliminary plat becomes void. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission also offered the following comments on the Concept <br />PUD: <br />1. Concept A appears to meet the intent of the Gateway Business District more than <br />Concept B by offering a greater architectural presence, taking full advantage of the <br />site's location; <br />2. The conflicting text regarding the maximum height requirement and percentage of <br />office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City to encourage the <br />goals as established by the Gateway Business District language; <br />3. Exterior building finishes should utilize brick, stone, glass or some combination of <br />these materials, compatible with what exists within the District; <br />4. The proposed western entrances to the site should be relocated to eliminate two 90 <br />degree comers; <br />5. Entrances to the property should be considered opposite to those that exist on the north <br />side of Gateway Boulevard; <br />6. Reconstruction of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Round Lake Road should <br />be considered to accommodate development; <br />7. Consideration should be given to budgeting for Round Lake Road improvements by the <br />City; <br />8. Consideration and discussion of the use and acquisition of the railway bridge in <br />conjunction with this development, the City of New Brighton and the County needs to <br />occur; <br />9. Development of the site should include a pedestrian trail along the south side of <br />Gateway Boulevard andlor within the site; <br />10. Further consideration to setbacks from the surface parking areas should be made since <br />neither proposal meets the minimum requirements; <br />11. Existing wetlands and ponds should be interconnected with proposed ponds and <br />wetlands for maximum circulation of runoff and positive flood control; <br />12. Final outlet of the wetland system should use the City's storm water pond on the <br />western portion ofthe site; <br />13. Movement of the City's storm water pond to the east, as proposed, is not <br />recommended; and <br />14. Wetland mitigation should consider the existing trunk sanitary sewer since this would <br />not be relocated by the City when other options may exist. <br /> <br />Updates <br />None at this time. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.