CCP 01-14-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26,2001 3 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Cases 1. Case #01-22, Beacon Construction, County Road E-2 and Cleveland; Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Master and Final Planned Unit Development Mr. Parish explained the location ofthe proposed apartment building. He reviewed the history ofthe case, He stated the applicant had facilitated a site visit. He noted that in addition the applicant had provided a traffic review comparing an apartment development to an office development that might occur under Neighborhood Business zoning, He added this review listed 186 trips per day for the apartment use and 294 trips per day for the office use. Mr. Parish reviewed three alternative site plans, He noted alternative two moved the building to the east and the access to the north, He added this alternative contemplated a 20-foot rear yard setback. He stated the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer had requested that the access be located as far south on property as possible. He noted he had not done a comprehensive review of the three alternatives. Mr. Parrish noted alternative three moved the building to the north and west the access to the north, He added the final option had the most significant potential changes, He stated it moved the building closer to Cleveland Avenue to the west. He noted it called for a reduced setback of 20 feet when the typical requirement was 40 feet. He added if this was a neighborhood business project, that orientation would meet the code requirement for setbacks. He stated this alternative put all of the parking to the rear of the building to screen it from Cleveland Avenue, He noted the first issue was whether the Council wanted the Comprehensive Plan designation changed, He added to the extent that policy decision is made, further evaluation of master unit development can be considered, Councilmember Larson stated the Council has to make a decision based on the proposed zoning being superior to what the property is currently zoned for. Mr. Parrish concurred, He reviewed the criteria for warranting a zoning change. Mayor Probst stated he was not prepared to support the base proposal as submitted. He noted that fundamentally he thought the site required a building designed for this site, He added the proposed options moved the project in a way to be more favorable, but he did not want to negotiate a design from the bench, He stated if the Council was interested in pursuing an apartment use, he would recommend remanded the case, He noted staff could work with the applicant to resolve some of the issues, He added the revised plan would go to the Planning Commission and then back to the Council. He stated it would mean a considerable delay, He noted that if it were not appropriate to change the Comprehensive Plan designation, then the rezoning would be unnecessary,