My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 03-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:35 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:36:25 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.
/
123
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 <br /> <br />t <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MINUTES <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA <br />PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION <br />WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2001 <br />6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER <br /> <br />Chair Steve Baker called the meeting to order at 6:35 p,m. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL <br /> <br />Present were Chair Steve Baker, Commissioners Warren Pakulski, Clayton Zimmerman, <br />Terri Duchenes and Therese Galatowitsch. Commissioner Steve Ericckson arrived at 7: 10 <br />p,m. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dave Sand was absent with prior notice, <br /> <br />Also present were Councilmember Beverly Aplikowski and Planner Jennifer Chaput. <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />Discussion for the session focussed on Planning Case #01-05, master POD for <br />Chesapeake Companies, Planner Chaput reviewed the case and the choices for action to <br />be taken in the regular meeting. The POD process was reviewed and discussed at length. <br />Planner Chaput explained that the POD allowed for flexibility from the Zoning <br />Ordinance, although no specific guidelines are provided, The Planning Commission <br />determined that they needed to establish what trade-offs could be made for the granting of <br />flexibility, <br /> <br />The Commissioners discussed the traffic study that was conducted in 1997 and if it <br />should be updated for this study since different uses were being proposed than those <br />originally presumed for this development. There was also discussion regarding the impact <br />of the Highway 96/10 intersection and access to Round Lake Road. <br /> <br />There was a considerable amount of discussion surrounding the proposed eight story <br />height of the structure(s), The Gateway Business District only allows for a maximum <br />height of thirty-five feet which was more acceptable by some Planning Commissioners, <br />However, the Zoning Ordinance language was conflicting in that it focuses on a signature <br />building for this site, There was also some confusion on the difference between the <br />minimum and maximum building size proposed for the site, The plans provided varied <br />greatly and there were some extreme difference between them and the proposed concepts, <br /> <br />The Commissioners established that their main focus should be on the Design Standards <br />document, not on the plans since they were not an accurate representation of what may be <br />built. Materials were discussed and it was decided that any reference to decorative block <br />should be stricken, There was also concern regarding synthetic stucco and EIFS, The <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.