CCP 01-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 2001 3 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. Parrish 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 because the application was not received in time. Mr. Parrish noted alternative three moved the building to the north and west. 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 of20 feet when the requitement was 40 feet. He added ifthis was a neighborhood business proj ect, 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 proj ect 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 remanding the case to the Planning Commission. 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. Councilmember Rem stated she was leaning towards a use to minimize the impact the proj ect had on the site. She noted she was not comfortable with putting in the additional parking. She added it would result in a dormitory situation. She stated she was not convinced the city needed to change the zoning on the site. She noted the Council pursued Neighborhood Business as the zoning in order to have a use that fit in more with the neighborhood's pedestrian character. She added she would not be interested in pursuing this case unless there was compelling evidence presented.