08-17-1992 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

wodd hsre pesk ise characterisdcs that would greatly exceed die planned uses and diis sbocld be evaluated. The other major difference is related to tcafSc generadon and planned access. The ice arena would generate many more trips, pardcolariy during events and the santra of die use is such that people would tend to arrive and leave in. concentrated periods. The other principal concern and one that I strongly believe needs to be addressed is the proposed direct access onto County Hi^way 6. None and it should be avoided if at all tepm County Hi^way D^artmeutwin require the ocnstnicdon of tom lanes to allow these two curb cuts to be constructed. While I have not done any cost comparisons, I have to briiare that the cost of bmlding* these nim lanr^ would go a long way toward bmldiDg an interior roadway, whidi wonld be fa better fh)m a cozunmni^ planning perspeddve, as well as benefir die School District’s plans for the future. of the plans oontemplated direct land access onto this roadwOT and h possible. I undecsta^ fiom a discussion with Glen Cook the^ Hei ZONING ANALYSIS Ice arenas are not lismd as etdier a pennitted or conditional use in the R'-IA DistricL Uses that are not listed as perxnhted, accessory, or conditional are generally considered to be prohibited in the district, unless a ffnrfing can be mads that use is si^ciendy similar to a use that is listed. lii other words this question calls for an interpretation by the City. Obviously the section in the code that is the closest is Section 10.20, Subd. 3 Conditional Uses. C. Clubs, Camps, etc. This secdon lists other recreadonal nses such as tennis clubs, public swimming pools to serve more than one ftmfly, camps, playgrounds, and private paries. The similarity diat exists is that both ice arenas and mai^ of die listed uses involve recreational activities. The difference lies in die Intensity of the proposed use when con^ared to a camp or a private park. Many of the listed condhiooal uses would logically occur in a park like setting, w^ a large component of open space. The development pattern shown, on die sketch plan calls for this use to be developed on a lot in a manner nmdi more like a bnsiness than a camp or park. Conditional uses are Qpically defined as nses that may not be acc^table in a zoning district hsr a number of rtasoos Orelated to intensity of the use or other dzaractedsdcs) but which may be made conqiatfble duou^ the of conditions. We can assume diat die objective would be to deteonme <'ondidons «hat would result is. to adjacent low* density residential neighborhoods, that would be comparable to diose that would occur if it was also devriqped in a low density residential pattern. Given the wtensky of this use and the bouts of opetadon ^ically associated with them, substantial bulTering would be to meet the test. The obvious qaesdon that occurs to me - is why locate it next to this future nei^iboihood instead of closer to die sriiool buddings? This would provide mudi greater physical s^aradon and go a long tvay toward addressing this compatibility quesdon. I would want to discuss thiy msttmr with the City at greater length befbre rwidering an opinion, but, I do think this use is substantially more intensive ihm the others listed in this section and the qussDon of adecuate conditions of approval sbonld be carefully considered, if the City chooses to allow this nse. You should also consider the fact by malnng this interpretarion you establish a precedent for other siinilariy atari cases. Whatever decision you make you should be pr^ared to mnlm consistently in similar sitnations in the fumre. For this reason, as well as others, I would favor processing rfiis appUcadon as a rezoning to Planned Unit Development (PUD). I believe the PUD