CC 06-24-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 6-24-91 Page 7 CASE #91-04 (Cent'd) 'lhe Planner explained the present PUD regulations identify the General Developnent Plan as the next phase of the process and the plan should contain all the detail necessary for constJ:uction of the b.llldings, grading, drainage, etc. He stated in this situation the fonnat has been revised somewhat; the site Plan would serve as the General Developnent Plan and would include review of individual b.lllding plans, as the b.llldings are constructed. Bergly stated the Zoning Ordinance study Committee is reviewing the current PUD Ordinance regulations and is suggesting a revised fonnat, which follows the site plan Review procedures as outlined. He noted the canp.IS type situation does not lend itself to the present Ordinance r€<JUlations. Councilmember Malone stated that the applicant would be require:l to adhere to the present PUD regulations. Attorney Filla explained that Council may take action to adopt sane controls that allow the consideration of this application as a PUD and agreed that the existing PUD regulations should be followed by the applicant. He indicated that the Council may postpone action on the Concept Plan, if a delay does not affect the developnent schedule for the College. He agreed that the city should have the recarmnended changes to the existing regulations in order prior to beginning the process. Filla advised that if favorable action is taken on the proposed Zoning Code Amendment language, a draft would be prepared for a consideration at future meeting; the PUD regulations amendment may also be considered at that t:i1ne. Councilmember Malone questioned the procedures which were followed during the review of Cardiac Pacemakers. Planner Bergly stated the PUD plan suhnitted by Cardiac Pacemakers has been delayed until suhnission of an FAW report and a traffic plan, which were conditions imposed with approval; no t:i1ne limitation was noted at the t:i1ne of approval. He stated the College is planning to construct the first b.lllding in 1991 or 1992; the ordinance has a six IOOIlth t:i1ne-frame for subnission of the first b.lllding plan and a six-month extension provision. Councilmember Malone favored amending the regulations. He further carmnented it is somewhat difficult to decipher on the Concept Plan what is "proposed" and what is "existing"; questioned if the parkin3' lot near the proposed emergency vehicle a~s point is existing or prcposed. Planner Bergly noted that all proposed b.llldings are shaded and the parkin3' lot in question is an existing area. Councilmember Malone questioned the rationale for limiting the Higher Etlucation Facilities to the R-1 District; originally it was proposed for both the R-1 and R-2 District. Bergly stated the main concern noted by Commission was to allow the Colleges which currently exist to continue; the intent was not to encourage another college facility in an R-2 District. He explained the Commission strongly favored rezoning the other existing college facility from B-2 to R-1 and requiring the facility to follow the PUD procedures for eJqXll1Sion or b.lllding modification. Councilmember Malone disagreed with the commission recammendation, based on the geographic location of the Bethel facility which lends itself to the B-2 zoning.