My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7C, Planning Case 12-019 - Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
12-17-12-Special
>
7C, Planning Case 12-019 - Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2012 2:37:44 PM
Creation date
12/13/2012 2:37:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 2 <br /> 2. The proposed redevelopment is located in the B2—General Business District. <br /> 3. The proposed use is allowed through a Planned Unit Development process in the B-2 <br /> District. <br /> 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City's regulations through a negotiated <br /> process with a developer. <br /> 5. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B2 District that outlines future development <br /> principals for the area. <br /> 6. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the requirements of <br /> the City's Zoning Code and design standards. <br /> 7. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the Guiding Plan for <br /> the B2 District. <br /> 8. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the City's <br /> Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 9. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City's Zoning Code, flexibility has been <br /> requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would <br /> mitigate the nonconformity. <br /> 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the <br /> community as a whole. <br /> 11. The proposal would increase vehicle trips to and from the site by 98 trips per day. The <br /> increase is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the mobility of surrounding streets. <br /> Staff Recommendations <br /> City Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff acknowledges that this site is an important gateway to <br /> the B-2 District, and yet remains vacant. Two other development applications have been <br /> reviewed by the City and approved in the past two years on this property, both of which did not <br /> come to fruition. Further, the City denied a development application earlier in 2012, which <br /> requested 120-units of residential with unknown uses for the remainder of the building or a <br /> newly created Lot 2. The applicants has made significant changes to their previous proposal, <br /> including reducing the number of units, eliminating the subdivision request, and completing the <br /> entire building as part of a single phase of construction. Staff understands the frustration of both <br /> the City and the developer to find a mutually beneficial and productive reuse of this property. In <br /> that vein, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application, Staff recommends the <br /> following conditions of approval: <br /> 1. The applicant shall address all engineering comments, listed in the November 16, 2012 <br /> staff comments memo to the applicant, to the satisfaction of the public works department <br /> before proceeding to the City Council. <br /> 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the <br /> conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City <br /> Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> 3. Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property <br /> owners prior to the issuance of development permits. <br /> 4. The applicant shall provide a roadway and utility easement, as reflected on the <br /> development plans, in favor of Ramsey County, prior to the issuance of development <br /> permits. <br /> 5. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development <br /> plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. <br /> 6. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development <br /> plans, in favor of the City,prior to the issuance of development permits. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.