2008_0616_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

residents; and observed that he would research other assisted living facilities and their parking allotment. Commissioner Doherty was not supportive of any additional parking on Alta Vista that would be an outcome of this development. Commissioner Boerigter shared many of Commissioner Doherty's concerns; opining that the proposed development packed a lot onto this site. Commissioner Boerigter referenced his initial questions regarding whether a PUD would address many of the issues raised; and opined that when reviewing permitted uses under a B -2 or B -3 zoning district, none seemed too problematic as a potential future use if this use didn't work. Commissioner Boerigter further noted that this property was located in a difficult location; and its current use was not attractive, nor was it a productive use of the property; however, when considering other uses and access issues at that corner, he was hard - pressed to identify any other good uses that wouldn't be more problematic. Commissioner Boerigter opined, that while not originally supporting this specific use, it had become more attractive as a use, based on the lack of access. Commissioner Boerigter questioned how amenable Ramsey County would be to any additional curb cuts and/or access points on Larpenteur or pushing traffic closer to the Dale /Larpenteur intersection. Commissioner Boerigter recognized concerns with Alta Vista traffic; however, opined that other permitted uses may create more traffic than this proposed project; and supported signage to discourage use of Alta Vista, at least by employees of the assisted living facility. Commissioner Boerigter questioned additional parking versus green space as seemingly contrary to environmental goals of the City, but noted the need to balance the needs of the site while not overparking the site as noted in previous development discussions (i.e., Rainbow development). Commissioner Boerigter concluded that, overall he was supportive of the requested action; that it represented a worthwhile improvement on that corner; and was not concerned with other uses from the rezoning; and would support both the rezoning and variance request. Further discussion included the existing curb cut on Alta Vista; review of what is best for the community and the site and balancing both; awareness of the applicant of neighborhood concerns and his willingness to work with neighbors and staff to resolve those issues and concerns; and potential elimination of access to Alta Vista with access onto Larpenteur. Mr. Lloyd clarified the requested land use actions and opined that any use would generate traffic onto Alta Vista; and advised that the City's Traffic Safety Committee would be alerted to the traffic concerns and potential signage requirements to pursue these real and significant safety issues. Commissioner Wozniak recognized staffs comments; however, opined that he didn't want any of this existing traffic going onto Alta Vista north; and was prepared to deny the application based on that alone. Commissioner Boerigter noted that existing traffic accessed Alta Vista; and any other permitted use could continue that practice; and further noted that traffic issues apparently pre - existed this proposed use. Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Wozniak; opining that she was uncomfortable approving rezoning without addressing and resolving traffic issues; and further opined that she would be inclined to deny rezoning, as the safety of the neighborhood and its children was more important than rezoning. Further discussion ensued regarding outside traffic, as opposed to local traffic, impacting the neighborhood from this proposed use; impacts of other potential uses currently allowed in B -2 and /or B -3 Zoning Districts and potential for lower traffic patterns anticipated with this use as opposed to those other permitted uses; and desire to encourage redevelopment from the current unproductive office center. Mr. Paschke cautioned Commissioners of the need for findings of fact to support denial of a rezoning request tied to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and how this use could be deemed inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of create much greater impacts than currently exist, either as a function of the area of under current zoning. The City Planner admitted that staff was challenged to come up with findings for denial, based on how this use would create a greater impact; while recognizing the very real issues brought forward during this discussion were site issues, not rezoning issues. Mr. Paschke advised that access and parking were site design issues, not rezoning issues, and that existing policies and ordinances would guide staff in making sure site conditions were achieved. Commissioner Wozniak questioned if a finding for denial could be that the Commission believed that having a PUD, with underlying zoning would allow the City to apply stronger and more specific conditions. Mr. Paschke advised that he could not recommend such a finding, as there was not a mechanism to require a PUD; and that a property owner could come forward with a redevelopment proposal for a three - story building that would meet all code requirements, and create greater impact, but not allow the Page 4 of 5