My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-17-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
08-21-17-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2017 1:10:42 PM
Creation date
8/17/2017 1:02:54 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.
/
198
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
The 2 Pine Tree Drive property has many of the same characteristics as <br />our 3900 Bethel drive property – it includes many acres of wooded, <br />somewhat secluded, “campus-like” land, largely invisible to the <br />surrounding land users. It is a very unique parcel within the B-2 district <br />(its current zone). <br /> Second, making this change would provide the city with adequate <br />capacity for placing a cap on the square footage allowable for higher <br />education usage in the B-2 district. As your report indicates, placing a <br />25% higher education usage cap on the B-2 district would only allow <br />about 20,000 additional SF of higher education usage as things stand <br />today. Converting the 2 Pine Tree property to “INST” would bring the <br />starting percentage to 0, thus allowing reasonable higher education <br />expansion into that zone while still providing a cap. <br /> Finally, zoning 2 Pine Tree Drive INST is consistent with the existing CUP <br />between Bethel and the City which already provides that over time the <br />entire property may be used for higher education use, including <br />“administrative offices, general and specialized classrooms, meeting <br />rooms, common spaces and related purposes.” (See CUP, page 1, <br />Section 1.) Accordingly, it is highly appropriate to include that parcel in <br />the newly proposed INST zone. <br /> <br />HIGHER ED USE <br /> The University prefers that no cap on higher education usage be placed on the <br />B-2 zone, unless the 2 Pine Tree property is rezoned to INST. As stated above <br />the proposed 25% cap would virtually eliminate any future higher ed usage in <br />the B-2 zone since the remaining 20,000 SF available is not, in our opinion, large <br />enough to allow meaningful higher ed use. Your report indicates that you could <br />find no example where such a percentage cap is used in other municipalities. <br />That may well be the case since, without a compelling public purpose, imposing <br />a cap seems arbitrary, especially when your report lists 7 properties within the <br />zone as vacant. If a cap is imposed however, one based on acreage would be <br />better that one based on square-footage. We suggest this approach would get <br />more to the heart of the matter than would one based on square-footage, as a <br />given property owner has no control as to whether other property owners will <br />invest in capital expansion on their properties, thus causing the square-footage <br />cap to be almost immovable. But if a property owner wishes to invest in capital <br />expansion or improvement on property they already own an acreage-based cap <br />would allow for this possibility. <br /> Specific to your recommendation to create a “Higher Education, <br />Classroom/Office” conditional use component, we are concerned that the <br />attempt to define this use by reference to mechanical or HVAC equipment is not <br />workable. First, it would be quite difficult to clearly define what “typical
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.