Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT - ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - AUGUST 2, 2006 <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />project was rejected once before and all they did was tu "recycle the projecL" He . <br />believed the City and the County shuuld protect the rights of the homeowners in the area. <br />He bclieved in democracy, but he felt this was infringing on his rights as a long-term <br />citizen. He asked them tu lhink about all of the aspects on how this would affect the <br />homeowners and townhome owners in the area. <br /> <br />Elwoud Caldwell, ]451 Arden View Drive, read the folluwing statement from the Board <br />of Directors of Arden Hills North Homes Association: "Members of Arden Hills North <br />Homes Associatiun are the OWl1ers and with one or two exc~rtio]'1s residents of the] 40 <br />townhomcs Iucated immediately adjacenl to and soulh<rFthe pruperty propused for <br />devclopment, with addresses of 1342 - 1481 Arden View Driye. lts governing body is a <br />nine-member elected Board of Directors. The follow~ng statements represent the view of <br />lhat Board. . . <br /> <br />'co; <br /> <br />'.'" <br />As puinted out in the past we are not now an&hever have bcenopp()scibto development <br />of the subject property as a townhousc-typ~'i.~ffice park per se. OurOpr!osition to the <br />predecessor proposal finally dcnicd by theEf-ff~Coun6il .oil July 18, 2005, concerned <br />primarily matters of density, usage, setbacks, paj"ki12g, and landscape space. Some but <br />not all of thuse concerns were alleviated during tfii:d?pIy 18, 2005, CuunciI meeting and <br />others have been alleviated in the proposal now presentcdas planning case 06-023. <br /> <br />However, a maior concern now is that alIofthe conditions added to the previous proposal <br />by the staff or the Planning CummissionviaRe~oIutiun 05-45 as presented (or as . <br />amended by lhe Cou~cil) be retained wherever applicable to the revised development <br />propusal, nutwithstanding defeat of Resolution 05-45 by a 3-2 maiurity in favur. <br />AccordinglY,(jtJianalysis'atlhis time wiIldeal with Conditions 3-6, 9, and 17 that were <br />included inR.!~bIu.tjon 05-45, now rep!acedin the Staff recommendation on Planning <br />Case 06-23 by Conditiuns6,7, 22, 24, and 25. <br /> <br />OccupallCVllll'd Use. <br />Conditions 6 arid] deal with .occupancy and use of each .of the 23 units now proposed. <br />Nut more than one business sha1l be permitted to occupy anyone office condominium <br />unit within the development, nor shall retail, restaurant, fast-food or residential uses be <br />pennitted, except retail use if incidental or accessory to the primary office use. We <br />previously advocated such restrictions and continue to du so, including their achievement <br />through deedrestrictiuns, covenants, or bylaw requirements. <br /> <br />RamUne Avenue Access. <br />Resolution 05-45 defeated last year (by a Council vute of 3-2 in favor) included no <br />Hamline A venue access, this having been deleted by an amendment aduptcd 4- I earlier in <br />the meeting. This is still what we would prefer. However, if Hamlinc Avenue access is <br />to be provided, we support the Staff recommended Conditions 24 and 26 in their entirety, <br />including right-in and right-oUl access only with no left turns, with minimum 30-foot <br />radii on the northwest and southwest comers, and with appropriate signs placed prior 10 <br />the road to the office development being opened up. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DRAfl <br />