2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 9 improve the background appearance of the office park in addition to allowing AHNA to . retain its wooded appcarance. Thank you for your consideration'" Elwood F. Caldwell. 1451 Arden Vicw Drive, stated "The Arden Hills North Homes Association, which reprcsents the owners of thc 140 townhomes directly south of and adjacent to the proposed developmcnt, stands by its comments addressing to Planning Commission mcmbers dated May 24, 2005 and attached with other appcndices to the staff memorandum dated June L 2005 by Peter Hellegers, City Planner. The additional comments below apply tirst to the 17 spccific conditions upon which thc staWs recommendation is contingcnt, and then to other section of the mcmorandum. At thc outset, many of the 17 conditions dcal with the technical details of implementing a complcx projcct, for which the stall is to be commcnded, and which call for no special comment from us, as intcrcsted as we arc in the projcct. This applics to Nos. 1 -3, X, 10, 11, and 13-17. Our comments on thc other conditions arc as follows: No.4: Uscs proposed tc.)r thc development. We agrce that only one busincss should bc permitted to occupy anyone lot, but do not find it acceptable that onc business may occupy as many as six lots. Although office uses . arc currcntly proposed, NB zoning includes clinics, a host of rctail uscs (specifically 33 arc namcd in thc ordinance), and restaurants with a Spccial Use Pcrmit. The staff analysis on page 4 states "If ... the Planning Commission did not want a retail use, which is otherwise pennittcd in the NB district, a condition should be addcd to the PUD documcnt. .. W c strongly advocatc the addition of such a condition, applicable to retail and restaurants. A retail business owning as many as six or even thrcc units could occupy an entirc building. Morcover, it is possible, indced likely, that individual owncrs may attempt to sublease a part of thcir spacc to another busincss, especially with the eleven walkout units having separatc lower cntranccs. We strongly oppose this and urgc the Planning Commission to do the same. Notc on page 5 it says "If thc desire of the Planning Commission is to maintain thc units as one user pcr unit, then a conditions should be added to the PUD document to that etTcct'" No.5: Applied a 30(~() limit (i.e., 9 of the 30 units) to the replacement by retail of the office uses now proposed. Since as indicated above wc oppose any replacement of office use by retail, we regard this condition as irrelevant. Under it, and if the acceptability of a busincss occupying as many as six lots is not changed and retail is not prohibited, one whole six-unit building or two three-unit buildings could be occupied by what would effectively bc onc rctail business. . No.6: Points out that restaurants could occupy space within thc dcvelopment with a Spccial Usc Permit. As with No.5 abovc, if retail and restaurant uses arc prohibited by a provision in the PUD document, as wc advocatc, this condition is ilTclcvant.