CCP 07-29-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.' DRAFT ~. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 8. 1996 9 . Councilmember Hicks noted the zero lot line was established by a previous action and he does I not understand how action under this application impacts that situation. He questioned staff s recommendation regarding the setbacks from the 100 foot park dedication line on the west side of the site. Mr. Ringwald explained staffs recommendation is zero to 25 feet is an acceptable . intrusion into Area 1 and 25 feet to 50 feet, it should first be reviewed by the City. He commented on the zoning districts in relationship to the property to be dedicated to the City which is currently zoned Industrial-I. He stated it is not unreasonable to require additional . setback to assure adequate buffering between single family residential and I-I uses. It was noted that another PUD amendment could be considered once a solid proposal is submitted which addresses the City's concern. I Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant is against the 25 foot restriction. Mr. Seiler I explained that CDS is interested in dividing and selling this site and wants to retain flexibility to add a building to the property. He noted that adding a building with a 25,000 square footprint would necessitate additional parking spaces. Rather than establishing pre-existing conditions, I CDS wants flexibility to utilize the site up to the 125 foot setback line. Mr. Ringwald advised the City would be in a better position if the Planning Commission and Ie staff recommendation is considered which leaves the decision to allow further intrusions into Area 1 with the City rather than with the developer. I MOTION: Hicks moved and Malone seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #96-05, Control Data Systems, PUD Master Planl4201 North Lexington Avenue, based on the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission and adding Condition #13, I related to zero lot line if the buildings on Parcels C and A are destroyed, and Condition #14, resolving the setback line from the park dedication line. I Counci[member Malone asked if the motion suggests a 25 foot setback line from the 200 foot mark and a 50 foot setback considered with City review. Councilmember Hicks indicated I support of a 25 foot setback from the park dedication line. With regard to the zero lot line, Councilmember Malone suggested the current zero lot line is not I an independent right of the PUD but would require review as part of any significant PUD amendment. He stated he cannot support the motion on the floor since it only requires a 25 foot setback from the park dedication line. I Mr. Franke provided a detailed explanation of site amenities and expressed his concern with regard to the applicants requested setback since it would "erase" a great portion of the wooded I area and is not responsible planning. Mr. Franke noted that staffs recommendation was actually a compromise and while he agrees with the need for flexibility to support development, he " believes staffs recommendation does just that. I