PC 06-01-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE I, 2005 9 improve the background appearance of the office park in addition to allowing AHNA to . retain its wooded appearance. Thank you for your consideration." Elwood F. Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, stated "The Arden Hills North Homes Association, which represents the owners of the 140 townhomes directly south of and adjacent to the proposed development, stands by its comments addressing to Planning Commission members dated May 24, 2005 and attached with other appendices to the staff memorandum dated June I, 2005 by Peter Hellegers, City Planner. The additional comments below apply first to the 17 specific conditions upon which the staffs recommendation is contingent, and then to other section of the memorandum. At the outset, many of the l7 conditions deal with the technical details of implementing a complex project, for which the staff is to be commended, and which call for no special comment from us, as interested as we are in the project. This applies to Nos. I-3, 8, 10, II, and 13-I7. Our comments on the other conditions are as follows: No.4: Uses proposed for the development. We agree that only one business should be permitted to occupy anyone lot, but do not find it acceptable that one business may occupy as many as six lots. Although office uses . are currently proposed, NB zoning includes clinics, a host of retail uses (specifically 33 are named in the ordinance), and restaurants with a Special Use Permit. The staff analysis on page 4 states "If... the Planning Commission did not want a retail use, which is otherwise permitted in the NB district, a condition should be added to the PUD document." We stronglv advocate the addition of such a condition, applicable to retail and restaurants. A retail business owning as many as six or even three units could occupy an entire building. Moreover, it is possible, indeed likely, that individual owners may attempt to sublease a part of their space to another business, especially with thc eleven walkout units having separate lower entrances. We strongly oppose this and urge the Planning Commission to do the same. Note on page 5 it says "If the desire of the Planning Commission is to maintain the units as one user per unit, then a conditions should be added to the PUD document to that effect." No.5: Applied a 30% limit (i.e., 9 of the 30 units) to the replacement by retail of the office uses now proposed. Since as indicated above we oppose any replacement of office use by retail, we regard this condition as irrelevant. Under it, and if the acceptability of a business occupying as many as six lots is not changed and retail is not prohibited, one whole six-unit building or two three-unit buildings could be occupied by what would effectively be one retail business. . No.6: Points out that restaurants could occupy space within the development with a Special Use Permit. As with No.5 above, if retail and restaurant uses are prohibited by a provision in the PUD document, as we advocate, this condition is irrelevant. ---------------