My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-06-10-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2010
>
10-06-10-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 2:24:27 PM
Creation date
10/1/2010 3:37:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Description
Planning Commission Agenda
Document
Planning Commission Agenda
General (2) - Date
10/6/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
97
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Maintain R -2 zoning <br />Our homes are zoned R -1. As part of this redevelopment, we understand there is a <br />proposal to change the zoning from R -2 to R -4 on the PHS parcels. We further understand the <br />reason for this change is to bring the permitted unit density of the current site closer to the actual <br />density even though the density will still exceed R -4 limits. A second reason for changing, R -4 <br />permits multiple dwelling units and mixed use. <br />Unless there is something we do not know about or do not understand we are inclined to <br />oppose the zoning changes for the following reasons: <br />1. On the Arden Hills zoning map, I can find no place where R -1 housing abuts a R -4 zone. <br />R -4 zoning appears to directly contradict the meaning of R -1 zoning when they share a <br />property line. While the purpose of R -1 zoning is "to restrict encroachment in <br />incompatible uses," The purpose of R -4 is to "permit the most intensive residential <br />development allowed in the City." These are cross purposes; they conflict. Perhaps that's <br />why they are not adjacent on the map. <br />2. We are told the number of units is not going to significantly change from what is there <br />now. The number of units there now exceeds the unit density allowed in R -2 zones and in <br />R -4 zones, so nothing is gained there. A SUP (Special Use Permit) can adjusts the <br />limitations to permit institutional use. But a SUP can be trumped by a P.U.D. A P.U.D. in <br />Arden Hills is an overlay district that does not change the underlying zoning. But with a <br />P.U.D. in place, it doesn't matter whether the underlying zone is R -2 or R -4, and a SUP is <br />not needed. Multiple housing units can be permitted; mixed -use can be permitted, based <br />on the P.U.D. alone. Furthermore, if a parcel is zoned R -4, a P.U.D. is mandatory for <br />redevelopment. In sum, it is difficult to see how anything gets better or clearer with R -4 <br />zoning. The P.U.D. is what matters and the P.U.D. is mandatory. <br />3. If nothing gets better with R -4 zoning, does anything get worse? Perhaps. Suppose that in <br />5 or 10 or 15 years Presbyterian Homes decides to sell this parcel. Someone buys it and <br />decides to redevelop it. Redevelopment, if executed, cancels all previous P.U.D. and SUP <br />agreements. Now the underlying zoning matters greatly. Suppose they want to build high <br />rise condos. They would have an easier time achieving that if the area was zoned R -4 than <br />if it was zoned R -2. If, on the other hand, they wanted to develop the site into single <br />family homes, the process would be straight forward with R -2 zoning. Let the high -rise <br />developer fight the re- zoning battle. <br />In sum, having R -4 zoning abutting R -1 is at least highly unusual if not operating at cross <br />purposes. The value of R -4 zoning for the current project is nebulous at best. R -4 zoning might <br />encourage the wrong kind of redevelopment in the future, such as high rise condos. Single family <br />homes on R -4 zoning are not as valuable as SFHs on R -2. <br />Shorewood Drive. Page 10 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.