4C, Draft Minutes 12-17-12 Special

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—DECEMBER 17, 2012 9 Mayor Grant asked if staff had an estimate on the expense to build the shared access along the westerly property line. He then requested further information on the easements. City Planner Beekman commented the City would have 10 years to build this shared access and estimated the expense to be $160,000. She further discussed the location of this shared access and proposed easements on the site. Councilmember Holden inquired how many parking stalls were proposed for this site. City Planner Beekman stated the plan showed 284 parking stalls which includes 28 stalls in the front of the building that the applicant is requesting that would encroach into the front setback. In total, the City requires 241 parking stalls. The plan did not take into account the shared access on the north side of the property, which would eliminate 22 parking stalls; however, with the addition of 28 front stalls there would be a net gain of six stalls on the site. Staff was comfortable with the proposed parking given the fact that the retail uses were unknown. Councilmember Holden suggested a portion of the parking remain proof of parking until the retail sites were further developed. City Planner Beekman did not object to this, but would want to discuss this further with the applicant. Mr. Davidson explained the parking lot would be reconstructed in May or June of this year and further information may be available at that time as to the retail tenants. He requested he be allowed to reserve the right to keep the lot as is, but would provide proof of parking if deemed appropriate. City Planner Beekman recommended that up to 25 parking stalls be held as proof of parking. This would leave the developer with the option. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to add Condition 24 recommending that up to 25 surface parking stalls be held as proof of parking. Mayor Grant expressed concern with removing 25 parking stalls given the amount of proposed retail in this development. He stated that the retail tenants were unknown and he did not support the motion amendment. City Planner Beekman indicated that the proof of parking stalls could be added in the future if the site had a need for additional parking spaces. Councilmember Holmes did not want to see the proof of parking become a burden to the applicant. Councilmember Holden stated that the retail parking was uncertain at this time and the proposed amendment would allow for additional flexibility for the developer. She indicated City Code