CCP 03-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 11 . Mr. McClure suggested caution about including too many contingencies into the Master Plan PUD, however, they do understand this is not the Final Plan POO consideration. He noted that when the Final Plan is submitted, it will provide another opportunity for Planning Commission and Council input and direction, Chair Baker asked that each of the sections in the Design Standards be addressed. Mr. Shardlow stated they will identify the areas they believe need to be addressed, He stated he does not think they need to bring back any antennas but would like the flexibility to go with 100% office development. He stated he would like to know ifthey would be permitted a 6,000 square foot free standing building and the ability to go to eight stories, He stated if a parking ramp is an accessory structure, it would not work if it cannot encroach into the 50 foot setback area. He stated it is important to have a monument sign on Highway 96, With the time requirement, he stated they may need to push that out since it will definitely not happen within six months due to the site acquisition activity that is still on-going, He suggested that a time limit be established at the point of final approval, Ms, Chaput stated the Code requirement between Final POO and Master POO consideration is six months, She read the Code section which explained the POO stages, Commissioner Erickson stated some of the issues, such as setbacks, would be easier to discuss when the building has been determined, He noted the Planning Commission needs to address justification for granting a variance, At this point, he finds no justification for the decreased setbacks since no hardship has been proven, . Commissioner Erickson noted the interior sideyard setbacks are governed more by the Building Code than the Zoning Code so that may be a non-issue. He stated he fully supports what Chair Baker indicated about the support ofthe City but it is more a matter of trying to come up with standards all will be held to so they cannot be left vague, Mr. Shardlow suggested they defer the setback issues, Chair Baker noted this has been approached as an office complex, Mr. Shardlow stated the Code allows 50% office and 50% service, He suggested that, other than office, no uses would be more than 50%. Chair Baker asked if they are contemplating building a health club, Mr, McClure stated they are not unless it is integrated into the office facility as an accessory use, He suggested that wording be added to clarify it would be a service use to the tenants of the facility, Ms, Chaput noted the section title is "Permitted Accessory Uses" , stating certain uses may only be accessory to the primary use on the property, but more language could be added to provide clarity, Mr. Shardlow suggested language be added to the "Purpose and Intent" section to indicate "It shall consist of predominantly office development and supporting ancillary uses,.." . Mr. McClure stated he does not think added language is needed since the percentage of uses is already included.