CCP 03-12-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 5 2. Building Height. A maximum height of 35' was permitted. The dock addition would be e approximately 20' in height. 3. Lot Covered By Structure. A variance was granted in Planning Case #69-23 to allow 47% lot coverage by the structure. The current lot coverage was 46.84% (235,914.9 square feet oflot area/l09,570 square feet of building). The dock addition increases the lot coverage to 47.35 % (235,914.9 square feet oflot area/l 10,770 square feet ofbuilding). 4. Parking and Circulation. The property currently had 137 parking stalls on the property. This was permitted at the time that the building was constructed. Mr. Lynch noted the applicant had broken down the parking requirements for the business, showing that not more than 127 parking spaces were required at anyone time. However, 188 spaces were required by the Zoning Ordinance, requiring 47 to be shown as proof of parking elsewhere. The applicant had submitted a letter of agreement with the neighboring property owner, Flaherty's Bowl, for joint use of 47 parking spaces. Mr. Lynch explained that parking spaces were required to be located a minimum of five feet from the property lines with drive aisles no less than 24' width. The parking at the rear of the building could not meet these minimum requirements, requiring the elimination and relocation of the proposed parking stalls on site. The Building Inspector had also noted that two additional handicap-parking stalls were required by Building Code. e 5. Screening. A compactor was being added to the west side of the building, screened through landscaping since it could not be easily contained in a structure. As a security measure, the entire truck dock area would be enclosed with a fence and electronic gate. It was proposed that the existing fence and gate be relocated to just south of the truck dock area and that a chain link fence with security barbwire on top (no longer permitted by Zoning Ordinance) surround the area. Barbed fences were not permitted by Section 6 (E) 4 (c) of the Zoning Ordinance. Chain link fences were acceptable to a height required by the applicant. The fencing along the rear property line should be relocated onto the applicant's property as it appeared to currently be within the railway right-of-way. 6. Aesthetics, The dock addition would be constructed to match the existing building as would the dock doors. Mr. Lynch advised that the City of Arden Hills received a completed application for this request on January 8,2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by March 9,2001 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to May 8,2001. The City may, with the petitioners' consent, extend the review period beyond the May 8, 2001 date. e Mr. Lynch noted that if the City denied the petitioners' request, "... it must state in writing, the reasons for denial at the time that it denies the request."