05-27-14-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 27, 2014 10 discussion, the City Council directed staff to have Arden Plaza, LLC submit a formal application requesting this extension. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the Pamela Couch Trust and JGC Trust,joint owners of the parcel where Walgreens is located, also requested a change that would have removed the condition that waives their right to appeal assessments levied against their property for the B-2 District streetscape improvements. The City Council directed staff to keep the existing language regarding the assessment in the document. Staff is continuing to work with the Trusts and Walgreens on how they would like to proceed. Once this issue is resolved, a final Amended and Restated Development Agreement will come back to the City Council for review. The Agreement will incorporate any approvals granted by the City Council in Planning Case 14-018. Associate Planner Bachler recommended approval of Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27,2014, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden asked if there was anything the Council could do to assist with the assessment discussions. Associate Planner Bachler provided comment on how the assessment discussions were progressing with the multiple entities. The motion carried (5-0). C. Discussion on 1861 Lakeshore Place Mayor Grant commented that a portion of Lakeshore Place abutting the property at 1861 Lakeshore Place would be paved as early as next Tuesday. He expressed concern with the drainage around this property and requested comment from staff. Assistant City Engineer Anderson discussed the location of this property along with the grade of the roadway. He reviewed the plan for the roadway, along with the location of the proposed concrete curb and gutter. It was noted that the water collected from the curb would flow into a ditch. He explained that a portion of right-of-way was purchased from the property owner for an Xcel transmission line and would also have two drainage swales. He commented that the depth of the ditch was not excessive but would allow for water collection. Assistant City Engineer Anderson understood that the property owner had concerns with the ditch for several reasons. The aesthetics were an issue, along with potential drainage issues of the storm water collected. He reported that the capacity of the culvert would be much greater than that of a curb inlet. He stated that curb inlets had the potential to clog. If the City were to try and rebuild this area with curb and gutter storm sewer, the City would need to assume a $40,000