04-05-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 6 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly noted the General Plan is in substantial compliance with the approved Concept Plan and the conditions of approval. He explained the planning components discussed in Section • VIII, G, 3, were discussed at the Concept stage and the determination was made that only the traffic component would be required; other components were either furnished or not required. Petersen moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-30, the Preliminary Plat containing five (5) lots and park dedication, subject to and based on the following: 1. The Preliminary Plat is necessary to accommodate financing of the proposed PUD project and is designed specifically for the General Plan. 2. The Preliminary Plat approval will be effective for development according to the PUD General Plan. If the General Plan is withdrawn prior to development, the Preliminary Plat will also be withdrawn. 3. Park Dedication will be resolved prior to issuance of grading or building permits. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) There was discussion relative to rezoning of the farmstead lot; it was determined the farmstead could remain as part of the PUD and retain the R-1 zoning. Commission questioned if the developer would object to the farmstead lot remaining as R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Cook stated he would not object. • Carlson moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-30, the Rezoning from R-1 Single-Family Residential District to R-4 Multiple Dwelling District, with the exception of the park dedication and the farmstead lot which shall remain an R-1 District within the PUD, based on the following: 1. There have been zoning classification changes and development changes on adjacent properties to the north which indicate that a higher density than that shown on the Comprehensive Development Plan is appropriate. 2. A Concept Plan has been approved by the Village and a General Development Plan has been subsequently submitted for a PUD which is found to be acceptable to the Village and requires rezoning. 3. The rezoning will only be effective for development according to the approved PUD General Plan. If the General Plan is withdrawn prior to development, the rezoning will revert to the R-1 District. 4. Rezoning is necessary to accomplish the development objectives proposed in the PUD General Plan. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) CASE #89-03; SITE Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of PLAN REVISION, 1313 4-5-89, relative to the application to construct a minor W. COUNTY ROAD E, addition to the McDonald's building; MCDONALD' S Bergly explained that any modification to an existing SUP would require an • amendment, however, he recommended in this case the application be treated as a minor site plan revision. He based the recommendation on the following; the proposal does not intensify the business activity, the proposal lessens traffic congestion and the proposed changes will be to the benefit of both the applicant and the Village. Commission concurred with reviewing this matter as a minor site plan revision.