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 />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />m) Easements & Utilities. There are a total of eight easements on the site. Utility lines are <br />required to be underground in all development within the Gateway Business District by <br />the Zoning Ordinance, There are abandoned water and sewer lines running east to west <br />through the property. There is also an abandoned gas main filled (presumed) with <br />concrete running north to south across the west edge of the property, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput advised that the Gateway Business District was, "., .established specifically to <br />provide a flexible framework for the development of the area of the City generally located in the <br />northeast quadrant of the interchange at 1-694 and I-35W", She explained that the purpose of a <br />PUD is to relax the strict application of standard zoning and subdivision requirements to realize <br />benefits of custom site design. However, the Zoning Ordinance language is vague regarding <br />flexibility of standards within a PUD, Therefore, past PUDs have been evaluated according to <br />the underlying zoning and proposed "flexibility" to the Zoning Ordinance language has been <br />addressed through a variance review as part of the PUD, <br /> <br />Ms, Chaput explained that the "flexibility" issue as it relates to PUD consideration and <br />advised that according to the City Attorney, it is not same as a variance consideration. She <br />reviewed the requested variances and findings as follows: <br /> <br />2. Requested Variances and Findings <br />To avoid redundancy, each variance request does not impair the health, safety, comfort or <br />general welfare of the public. Each request also meets the spirit and intent ofthe <br />Comprehensive Plan and Gateway Business Zoning District by allowing, ",.. development <br />that will create an attractive environment and a positive image for the site..," and . <br />"., .promoting high quality, unified, large-scale development.,,", The requested variances <br />may be sUflllllarized as follows: <br /> <br />a) Maximum office component requirement be increased from 50% to 100% (Zoning <br />Ordinance Section 5 (M) #3 (a)). <br />i, A traffic study completed for the District, outlining maximum traffic by a certain type <br />of build out, and the Welsh Development was restricted in its use, with approvals for <br />variances (P.C, #97-06) for less office space and greater warehouse. These restrictions <br />have been put in place so that the future development of the comer property could <br />increase the amount of permitted office space and have a prominent image; and <br />11. The proposed use is a reasonable use for the property and can be accommodated due to <br />regulations placed on other developments in the District in the past, <br /> <br />b) Minimum building size reduced from 20,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet (Zoning <br />Ordinance Section 5 (M) #5 (a) #4 (a)). <br />j, The applicant is requesting a smaller building size for marketing reasons. Depending <br />on the tenants, buildings may be on individual parcels or part of a larger whole. The <br />applicant wants the flexibility of marketing the site to potentially smaller tenants (ex. <br />banks) within a predominately office-oriented complex; and <br />11. The proposed building size is reasonable for the uses being proposed and flexibility in <br />building size should be permitted to allow for, ",. ,mix, relationship and intensity of <br />uses and buildings (that) will be compatible and complimentary both internally and . <br />with adjacent uses", <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.