03-07-12-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

privately owned apartments that are predominantly used by students must provide individual kitchens to their tenants. In addition to concerns related to the Zoning Code Amendment to allow SRO's, Staff has concerns over the phasing plan which would keep two floors vacant for a period of time and the traffic generation and parking availability associated with this application, since the restaurant facility is not part of the redevelopment proposal, but would occur at a later date. Staff continues to believe that this property is an appropriate location for high density housing; however, Staff feels strongly that multi-family dwelling units would be a more appropriate use here, and that a diversity of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom units would function the best, both in terms of satisfying market demands, but offering a variety of options for potential tenants. An ideal scenario would be to plan for the redevelop the site as a whole, rather than the City reviewing it in segments over time. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, advances the goals, and principles within the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The applicant is proposing to amend the Zoning Code to increase the number of allowed persons in a boarding house, and make boarding houses a permitted use in the B-2 District. 2. Boarding houses are not currently a permitted use in the B-2 District 3. The City's definition for boarding houses allows lodging for no more than five persons. The proposed use would have 153 persons. 4. The proposal would increase vehicle trips on the site compared to existing and past conditions. The amount of increase cannot be quantified based on the plans submitted. 5. Required parking demand cannot be determined based on the plans submitted. 6. The proposal is in compliance with the City's setback, lot size, and lot coverage requirements. 7. The proposal exceeds the City's maximum density requirements in the B-2 District. 8. The proposal meets or exceeds the City's general regulation requirements, with the exception of outdoor seating or amenities, which are not provided for, but are required by the design standards for the B-2 District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 7, 2012 P:tPlanningWlanning Casesl2012112-002-Holiday Inn Plat and PUD(Pending)W-07-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 11 of 13