06-14-10-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JUNE 14, 2010 7 7C. .Manning Case 10-008—An Amendment to the Arden Plaza Master PUD and Final PUD for Phase I(continued) Pete Keely, Collage Architects, stated the building materials were brick and masonry block in a variety of materials. He reviewed the location of the various materials in detail with the Council. There would be no EFIS on the buildings. Mayor Harpstead questioned what changed within the request based on the conditions approved by the Planning Commission. City Planner Beekman stated there was a date amendment, and the project would be required to be constructed according to the original PUD or in the alternative plans. Building 3 would not have to be built in Phase L but could be added in the future as an option. She reviewed the new Phase I plans with the additional greenspace on Lot 3. Councilmember Holden questioned if Lot 1 met the greenspace requirements. City Planner Beekman indicated the property as a whole meets the landscaping requirements. Lot 1 was lower than the others, but the net result would be an increase in greenspace as Lot 3 would be not developed. MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to Approve the Extension of the PUD for one year. The motion failed (McCluniz opposed). MOTION: Mayor Harpstead moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to Table Planning Case 10-008 an Amendment to the Master Planned Unit Development and Final PUD for Phase 1 of the Arden Plaza Redevelopment Proposal at 3527 Lexington Avenue South, and Arden Plaza Development Agreement Amendment No. 1, based on the fact the development does not meet the spirit of the original agreement or the B-2 zoning requirements. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). D. Planning Case 10-007—Variance at 1146 Waldon Place City Planner Beekman stated the home at 1146 Waldon Place was requesting an eight foot variance to the front yard setback to construct an enclosed front entryway addition. The rest of the dwelling and attached garage would remain unchanged. She explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Councilmember Holden questioned the hardship for this property. City Planner Beekman indicated the property, as situated on the lot, would not allow for a front addition without a variance. There were no alternative options and the circumstances were not created by the landowner because the lot was platted prior to their taking ownership. In addition, the neighbors were in favor of the project and the addition would improve the front facade of the home.