10-11-21-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—OCTOBER 11, 2021 8 Councilmember Holmes stated she would support this matter being tabled versus the item being denied. She commented she would like to see only the Aldi building on this property without the second building. She explained if the item were denied altogether the applicant could not alter the plans. Councilmember Holden indicated she did not support this item being tabled because the applicant has been told to not have so many buildings, to reduce the number of variances and the applicant has chosen not to do this. She commented if the item were tabled it would come back to the City Council and would not go before the Planning Commission. She believed the plans needed to be significantly altered prior to being reconsidered by the Council. She reported the same concerns that are being voiced this evening have already been voiced to the applicant and the applicant had not heeded these concerns. Councilmember Scott stated he was surprised and pleased that the applicant had come back with changes. He commented on how the national coffee house had been changed to a dental/bank building. He appreciated the fact that the applicant had addressed some of the concerns, and understood there were still some concerns out there. He reported the Council has a history of accommodating and working with developers. He stated he was not in favor of denying the request, but would support tabling the matter. Mayor Grant commented the concern with this PUD was the number of variances being requested. He stated he was not seeing what the applicant was bringing to the City. He noted a PUD was not a license to do away with City Code requirements. He explained he would like to see this project reconfigured. Councilmember Holden discussed the flexibility that was granted for Lexington Station Phase 3. She did not believe there were any projects in the City where more than 15 flexibility variances were granted. Councilmember Scott reported this site was an eyesore and he would like to see it redeveloped. He indicated he was willing to negotiate on these items. Mayor Grant commented staff neglected to state this site would require additional flexibility in order to have a drive thru, which was another matter for the Council to consider. He discussed how business models were changing due to COVID and noted the number of drive thrus in the community may be on the rise. He stated he did not have a problem with the drive-thru on the site. He believed there were enough concerns with this project and that they could not be solved from the bench. Councilmember Holmes indicated the building orientation was in compliance with the zoning code. She noted she had major concerns with the parking and setbacks. She did not believe the second building fit on this site. She commented on the number of variances that have been approved over the past 16 years that she has been serving on the City Council and did not recall the Council ever granting variances to allow a second structure on a property that was not part of the main business. She asked if the applicant would be willing to consider just an Aldi building on this site without the second building.