CCP 03-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 7, 2001 10 Chair Baker stated the City shares the vision to create a high quality development and asked how . the City can assure that objective is met by the developer. He asked about a commitment to a certain size of development, noting the large range that is being discussed. He asked if the developer would object to including a "window" of size in the PUD. Mr. Shardlow stated the 6,000 square foot building is only a possible scenario with multi tenants, From a financial standpoint, they are not yet in a position to identify the base level of square footage needed to drive the project. He advised that no developer will come in with a speculation project and give a guarantee on the square footage, Instead, they are asking for a partnership by identifying the design standards they will abide within for a high quality development. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he understands the developer's desire for flexibility and to be able to bring the project to market as quickly as possible, He stated he also appreciates the design standards and inability to identify the final square footage or project design until the tenant is identified, Commissioner Zimmerman recommended that these design standards be considered as "proposed" design standards since exactly what is needed is not yet known, Commissioner Zimmerman stated he would like the Plarming Commission to have the ability to re-address the design standards once the tenant is identified and the Final Plan is submitted, At that point, an intelligent decision can be made about what is appropriate, Mr. Shardlow asked the Planning Commission to remember that the PUD process would create . an ordinance for tbis project and would have no status until the project is fmally approved, He stated approval of the PUD is not complete until it is at the final stage and the ordinance is adopted by the City Council. He stated that what is being suggested by Commissioner Zimmerman is exactly what will happen. Mr. Shardlow stated the only thing that does not fit conceptually is that the Gateway Ordinance is a bit out-of-date since it was based on a past-dated concept. He stated if the Planning Commission wants to maintain 50 foot setbacks, it would not be workable on this project. Mr. Shardlow stated again that approving these design standards would not grant approval of the Final Plan. Ms, Chaput stated Mr. Shardlow is correct that the Master Plan is the guide used to place restrictions on the final plan, At the final PUD stage, the building plan and criteria are reviewed to assure conformance with the Design Standards. Ms. Chaput stated the concept PUD is not binding but the Master Plan is binding, Mr. Shardlow stated the applicant is vested in the plan and has reasonable certainty they would obtain approval if the Final Plan is in compliance with the approved Master Plan. Mr. McClure stated the problem they have seen with going first to find tenants is the perceived uncertainty felt by the tenants, He stated they are attempting to key this site up to make it as attractive as possible. Mr. McClure stated they have worked closely with staff to, collectively, . get this project done. He stated the PUD identifies the issues they feel specifically need to be addressed, Mr. McClure stated he is concerned about making these standards "loose" since it effectively "cuts the heart out" of what they are attempting to address,