Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 14, 2012 13 <br /> City Planner Beekman explained she had met with the applicant on May 2"d. She continues to <br /> have concerns with the comprehensive land use plan for this development. <br /> Mayor Grant questioned how parking requirements were set for residential uses. <br /> City Planner Beekman noted this was on a per unit basis and not based on the square footage of <br /> the building. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a <br /> motion to deny Planning Case 12-009 for the Preliminary and Final Plat, and <br /> Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the submitted plans <br /> and following findings of fact: <br /> 1. The application lacks a comprehensive master land use plan. <br /> 2. The application lacks a detailed phasing and construction plan with <br /> timing for phasing implementation. <br /> 3. The traffic and parking cannot be fully analyzed because a <br /> comprehensive land use plan has not been submitted. <br /> 4. Lot 2 is a non conforming lot, which does not have approved access to <br /> County Road E or Lexington Avenue based on the submitted concept <br /> plan. <br /> 5. The application lacks a detailed lighting plan. <br /> 6. The application lacks a detailed security plan. <br /> 7. The application has too many variables that remain undefined. <br /> Councilmember Holden requested the City Attorney repeat his comments on how applications <br /> are to proceed through the City for approval. <br /> City Attorney Filla commented the process works best if the applicant submits a completed <br /> application up front which allows for a thorough review and recommendation from the Planning <br /> Commission. This would allow for the Council to make a more informed decision. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked if the denial was based solely on the Planning Commission's <br /> findings of fact or if additional findings could be added. <br /> Mayor Grant noted that additional findings could be added. <br /> Councilmember Holmes suggested another finding be added to note the applicant had not <br /> submitted a full application. New material was submitted by the applicant for review by the <br /> Council this evening that was not reviewed by the Planning Commission in April. <br /> MOTION AMENDMENT: <br /> Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded an <br /> amendment to add an additional findings of fact: <br />