Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 3, 2001 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Ms. Bergman asked why Bethel College was not building the development themselves. <br />. Mr. Kunkel r lied if Bethel Colle e bou ht the ro ert outri t it would take it off of <br />the tax roles and they did have intentions in the future to develop future housing on <br />campus, but this was a good alternative until the on campus housing was ready. <br /> <br />Mr. Kjersten stated the apartment name would be Arden South Apartments. <br /> <br />A resident from 3777 New Brighton Road asked if there were any guarantees that this <br />would be senior housing after the students moved out. Mr. Kjersten stated he could not <br />guarantee it would be senior housing because they did not know what the trend in the <br />future would be with respect to this type of housing, but it would be marketable housing. <br />It would not be low income or Section 8 housing. He stated this would not be family <br />housing because the apartments would not be large enough. They were designed for <br />empty nesters or seniors. <br /> <br />Marsha Berguson, 3759 New Brighton Road, stated she had traffic and wetland concerns. <br />She believed there would be an increase in accidents. She stated a stop light at that <br />intersection would be needed. She asked the City consider this when basing their <br />decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Kjersten stated the traffic issue was a very legitimate concern, but he believed this <br />type of a development would be less traffic than a commercial development. He stated <br />once the Bethel students moved out, the amount of people in those apartments would be <br />cut in half, which would also eliminate some of the traffic in the future. <br /> <br />Chair Baker closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand explained the history of why this area was originally zoned as a <br />neighborhood business. He stated there were never any serious takers on this property to <br />develop this type of a business so the land had remained dormant. Therefore, if they <br />were not going to get any neighborhood business in this area, a multi-family development <br />in this area made sense. He stated he was in favor ofrezoning this area. He stated he did <br />not see any better use to this land. <br /> <br />Commissioner Duchene asked if this area was a gateway area. Mr. Parrish replied it was <br />not a gateway area. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated the Comprehensive Plan showed this was a gateway <br />designated location, unless this was redesignated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Duchene asked if consideration should be given at the comer for a <br />gateway sign and asked if a sign easement would be appropriate. Mr. Kjersten replied <br />they had no objection to having a gateway sign at this comer. They did not have any <br />objection giving the City an easement for a City provided gateway sign. <br /> <br />Commissioner Duchene asked if they had considered putting sidewalks or footpaths <br />along Cleveland Avenue. Mr. Kjersten replied one of the issues was that most of the . <br />significant vegetation was along the area where a sidewalk would need to be placed. A <br />lot of large trees would be lost if they placed a sidewalk there. He stated the other area <br />