CCP 07-29-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DP A eT 'I . h.. ~--\r ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUL Y 8. 1996 10 .1 Mr. Seiler stated his point in suggesting a 125 foot setback is not that a developer would tear I down the wooded area, but to eliminate restricting a future development. He reviewed current I restrictions related to parking spaces and the potential that exists where additional parking spaces would need to be created. He suggested the area of the 25 foot "overlap" could also be used to provide additional landscaping. Mr. Seiler reiterated that CDS prefers to retain flexibility and I suggested the actual setback be considered at the time the site plan is submitted for consideration. Councilmember Malone stated he understands Mr. Seiler's request but expressed concern with I the need to protect the City's best interest in case the developer is not as sensitive to these issue as CDS. Mr. Seiler suggested a compromise to consider 25 feet with up to 75 feet under review (rather than 50 feet). I Mayor Probst concurred with Councilmember Malone's comments and stated he does not support the motion on the floor since it does not provide adequate protection of the wooded area and I setback from the residential area. Councilmember Hicks withdrew his motion on the floor. He noted that a site plan review will be I needed with any development and different parking options could be considered, such as a two- story facility. He explained he also does not support eradicating the wooded area but wants to .- remain flexible. MOTION: Malone moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case I #96-05, Control Data Systems, PUD Master PlanlMinor Subdivision, 4201 North Lexington Avenue, based on the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission and adding Condition #13, The current zero lot line between Parcels A-I and C is I not an independent right of the PUD and will require review should there be any significant PUD amendment; and Condition #14, The developable setback, measuring from the easterly park dedication line would be 50 feet with City I review and 75 feet without review. Mr. Fritsinger questioned the definition of "significant PUD amendment" and suggested I rewording to "significant site redevelopment". Councilmembers Malone and Aplikowski agreed to this friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously (4-0), I MOTION: Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to endorse and accept the Park I Dedication Agreement for Planning Case #96-05 per the recommendation of Parks & Recreation Director Walsh. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). I .. I