06-08-22 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 8, 2022 8 Commissioner Blilie explained she would also be recommending denial of the request. Commissioner Mitchell stated she would support denial of the request as well due to the noise concerns. She reported she also had concerns with how this development would impact traffic, especially given the fact this area already had traffic concerns. Commissioner Weber indicated a sound wall was 10+ years out for this portion of roadway. Commissioner Wicklund commented he looked differently at this project. He understood the Planning Commission did not support high density on this corner property but noted he would be voting differently for this project. He reported the issue before the Commission was a reguiding for this property to high density. He stated solving the traffic concerns would be addressed down the road if and when a proposal comes before the City for this property. Commissioner Weber stated he did not believe the Commission was saying we don’t ever want high density on this corner, but rather the Commission was saying right now, this project does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Chair Vijums moved and Commissioner Weber seconded a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-009 for a Future Land Use Map and Chapter 6 Text Amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan at 1700 Highway 96 West based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the June 8, 2022, report to the Planning Commission, noting the Commission had concerns with traffic, access, noise, neighborhood character, and the potential for additional high density units in this neighborhood. The motion carried 5-1 (Commissioner Wicklund opposed). C. Planning Case 22-011; City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Special Regulations for Drive-Up Windows and Drive Lanes – Public Hearing City Planner Jagoe stated at their April 18th work session, the City Council discussed possible topics that could be considered for holding a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission. Reviewing potential topics in advance would allow planning staff an opportunity to research content and flexibility for scheduling the joint meeting at a later date based on planning case submissions. From this discussion, the Council decided that fences, drive-thru commercial districts, and home occupation deliveries would be worked on by staff. Topics for a future joint meeting would be signage and infill items. City Planner Jagoe explained staff was directed to bring forward the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for the first review and to hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the draft ordinance language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought to the City Council for subsequent discussion and adoption. City Planner Jagoe commented on the Overview of the Ordinance Amendments and provided the Findings of Fact for review: