03-10-14-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201417 complies with virtually every underlining zoning requirement in the B-2 District; including size. He noted that the size of the proposed building is well within the size parameters of the underlying zoning. For the past two or three months, a lot of work has gone into designing a building that would meet the B-2 district standards and what has been designed is a building that would be situated at the property setback line; a building that is brick and glass in character; and a use that has a minimal impact on the community. Mr. Davidson indicated that as the Council rightly points out, this is a tricky site. Access has been limited to County Road E because the County does not want access to Lexington Avenue. As a consequence of the access being directed to County Road E, there are a limited number of users whose business can work in that kind of environment in a retail district. He noted that the site and its access have worked for 25 years with a restaurant, a hotel, and a banquet center that have utilized all kinds of trucks. He noted that there is an exit to the west of this site, but to his knowledge, this particular access has been used for years without any adverse impact to the community; therefore, he is unclear about the access issue. He believed there is no access problem as trucks are currently servicing the retail component on the site. He is distraught that the zoning code is being ignored because there is an opinion that a building is too big. He noted that Ramsey County approved the access to the site, as did the traffic consultant and City staff. He is disheartened that a wonderful use that could help revitalize County Road E is being rejected because of a perceived traffic issue, and he is also disappointed that this proposal has not been embraced by the Council since it does meet the heart and soul of the B-2 District. Mayor Grant reiterated that the size of the proposed building was previously discussed by the Council at a work session (on November 18, 2013) with Mr. Davidson. It should not come as a surprise that the Council did not support the size of the building. Mr. Davidson reported that the proposed building met the B-2 Design Standards and setback zoning requirements. Councilmember Holden questioned why the Council held work sessions with developers to provide input on potential developments when Council comments were not heeded. She appreciated the work completed by staff and the developer on this site; however, she did not support the PUD amendment. Councilmember McClung agreed stating each of the concerns raised this evening were brought to the developer by the Council at a previous work session. He explained that the developer took no initiative to mitigate any of these concerns. The motion carried (5-0). City Attorney Jamnik reported that he would be drafting findings for the Council to approve at its next meeting as part of this case. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.