pf08-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�63 residents; and obsenred that he would research other assisted living facilities and their parking allotment. 16a Commissioner poherty was not supportive of any additional parking on Alta Vista that would be an 1 s5 outcome of this development. 166 Commissioner Boerigter shared many of Commissioner poherty's concerns; opining that the proposed �6� development packed a lot onto this site. Commissioner Boerigter referenced his initial questions 168 regarding whether a PUD would address many of the issues raised; and opined that when reviewing 169 permitted uses under a B-2 or B-3 zoning district, none seemed too problematic as a potential future use 17o if this use didn't work. Commissioner Boerigter further noted that this property was located in a di�cult �� location; and its current use was not attractive, nor was it a productive use of the property; however, when 172 considering other uses and access issues at that corner, he was hard-pressed to identify any other good 173 uses that wouldn't be more problematic. Commissioner Boerigter opined, that while not originally � 7a supporting this specific use, it had become more attractive as a use, based on the lack of access. �75 Commissioner Boerigter questioned how amenable Ramsey County would be to any additional curb cuts 176 and/or access points on Larpenteur or pushing traffic closer to the Dale/Larpenteur intersection. 1�� Commissioner Boerigter recognized concerns with Alta Vista traffic; however, opined that other permitted 1 �B uses may create more traffic than this proposed project; and supported signage to discourage use of Alta 179 Vista, at least by employees of the assisted living facility. Commissioner Boerigter questioned additional 18o parking versus green space as seemingly contrary to environmental goals of the City, but noted the need �8� to balance the needs of the site while not overparking the site as noted in previous development �s2 discussions (i.e., Rainbow development). Commissioner Boerigter concluded that, overall he was 183 supportive of the requested action; that it represented a worthwhile improvement on that corner; and was 18a not concerned with other uses from the rezoning; and would support both the rezoning and variance 1 s5 request. 186 Further discussion included the existing curb cut on Alta Vista; review of what is best for the community 187 and the site and balancing both; awareness of the applicant of neighborhood concerns and his �8� willingness to work with neighbors and staff to resolve those issues and concerns; and potential 189 elimination of access to Alta Vista with access onto Larpenteur. �90 Mr. Lloyd clarified the requested land use actions and opined that any use would generate traffic onto Alta 19� Vista; and advised that the City's Traffic Safety Committee would be alerted to the traffic concerns and 192 potential signage requirements to pursue these real and significant safety issues. 193 Commissioner Wozniak recognized staff's comments; however, opined that he didn't want any of this �9a existing traffic going onto Alta Vista north; and was prepared to deny the application based on that alone. 195 Commissioner Boerigter noted that existing traffic accessed Alta Vista; and any other permitted use could �96 continue that practice; and further noted that tra�c issues apparently pre-existed this proposed use. �9� Chair Bakeman concurred with Commissioner Wozniak; opining that she was uncomfortable approving 19a rezoning without addressing and resolving traffic issues; and further opined that she would be inclined to 199 deny rezoning, as the safety of the neighborhood and its children was more important than rezoning. 20o Further discussion ensued regarding outside traffic, as opposed to local traffic, impacting the 201 neighborhood from this proposed use; impacts of other potential uses currently allowed in B-2 and/or B-3 202 Zoning Districts and potential for lower tra�c patterns anticipated with this use as opposed to those other 203 permitted uses; and desire to encourage redevelopment from the current unproductive office center. 2oa Mr. Paschke cautioned Commissioners of the need for findings of fact to support denial of a rezoning 205 request tied to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and how this use could be deemed inconsistent 2os with the Comprehensive Plan of create much greater impacts than currently exist, either as a function of 20� the area of under current zoning. The City Planner admitted that staff was challenged to come up with 20�3 findings for denial, based on how this use would create a greater impact; while recognizing the very real 20� issues brought forward during this discussion were site issues, not rezoning issues. Mr. Paschke advised 2� o that access and parking were site design issues, not rezoning issues, and that existing policies and z� � ordinances would guide staff in making sure site conditions were achieved. 2� 2 Commissioner Wozniak questioned if a finding for denia� could be that the Commission believed that 213 having a PUD, with underlying zoning would allow the City to apply stronger and more specific conditions. 21 � Mr. Paschke advised that he could not recommend such a finding, as there was not a mechanism to 2�5 require a PUD; and that a property owner could come forward with a redevelopment proposal for a three- 2? 6 story building that would meet all code requirements, and create greater impact, but not allow the Page 4 of 5 . •