05-12-14-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 31, 20142 City Planner Streff stated that since the concerns regarding parking and the feasibility of acquiring parking easements for off-site parking. The current proposal consists of a 16,380 square foot kitchen and food assembly area, a 3,456 square foot office, and a 2,288 square foot, 10-seat café. The current proposal does not include an on-site banquet facility as was first proposed. Approximately 18,000 square feet would remain vacant and could potentially be used to expand the kitchen and food assembly area at a later date. City Planner Streff indicated that the kitchen and food assembly use is defined in the Zoning -2 Zoning District. By definition, an accessory use must be incidental to the principal use of the property, which means that the accessory use must directly kitchen and food assembly area to support off-site catering events, wholesale production/distribution to institutional or corporate clients, and retail sales of café meals and takeout to consumers. The applicant estimates that once the retail portion of the business is established, the retail will comprise approximately 35% of the business, and the wholesale/catering will comprise 65% of the business. Given this information and after conversations with the City Attorney, staff believes that the kitchen and food assembly area are not accessory uses to the café/retail store. City Planner Streff reported that t property. Its large size and small amount of parking limits the number of uses that could e B-2 Zoning District. City staff recognizes the importance of finding a reuse for this property, but believes that additional Council direction is necessary. Staff believes that a Zoning Code Amendment is required to allow this proposal to move forward. City Planner Streff explained that the City has an easement over part of the area where a sidewalk connection is proposed, however, the City does not currently have easements to allow sidewalk construction across the entire frontage. The applicant has indicated that she would be willing to provide the necessary easements, but staff has concluded that the current proposed use will need all of the available 35 parking spaces. It would be possible to construct a sidewalk between the curb and the parking lot. The City would request pedestrian easements in the event that the property eventually was redeveloped. City Planner Streff commented that the current proposal suggests that traffic would move through the site in a one-way fashion from east to west. Customers or clients would enter the site near the east property line and proceed through the parking lot where upon exit, on the west side of the property, a right-out only would be permitted. As with each proposal, traffic and pedestrian safety needs to be evaluated and the City needs to determine what type of access is appropriate. Staff asked the Council to consider the following questions: 1) Would the City Council support a zoning amendment to allow this application to proceed?