My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-27-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
10-27-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/24/2016 3:51:05 PM
Creation date
10/24/2014 5:21:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 4 <br /> <br />City Planner Streff reported that the PUD for this property has since expired as the timeline for <br />the construction of this development did not met the conditions stated within the PUD. In cases <br />where a PUD approval expires, the property defaults to the underlining zoning district and in this <br />case, back to GB Gateway Business District and standards set forth for this district within the <br />Zoning Ordinance. <br /> <br />City Planner Streff indicated that the property located at 4200 Round Lake Road is located <br />within the GB Gateway Business District where manufacturing/processing and office uses are <br />permitted and where retail and warehousing uses are permitted as accessory uses only. Within this <br />district, office uses are permitted to occupy between 25 percent and 50 percent of the total floor <br />area. Retail uses in this district can occupy no more than 15 percent of the total floor area of the <br />building in which they are located. Warehousing is prohibited in this district when the use <br />occupies more than 75 percent of the structure. The project as proposed would be required to use <br />the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process as flexibility is being request. <br /> <br />Nick Roberts, Roberts Management Group, thanked the Council for reviewing his concept plan. <br />He explained that the current owner does not have any prospects for a large office user, and for <br />this reason, he believed the site could be used to attract high quality businesses to the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden did not understand the proposed location of the building on the site. <br />She questioned if the site would be used for distribution. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts stated that one of the benefits of the site is its exposure to I-694 and I-35W. <br />However, there are site complications with the wetland which will force the building to be pushed <br />back. He described the proposed layout of the building and noted that it would be 20% office and <br />80% production/manufacturing uses. He reiterated that the space would not be used as a <br />distribution center. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes did not believe that the site would be used for distribution. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant discussed the great access to the site as well as the proposed building. He wanted <br />to see some substantial, quality building materials used on the building. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts understood that the City wanted to have a high quality building that would last long- <br />term. He reported that the design would be timeless and something he could be proud of. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes questioned the timeline for the proposed office/production building. <br /> <br />Mr. Roberts anticipated that the timeline was further out than the other project (1235 Red Fox <br />Road) that he is proposing. He described the climate of the office rental market in the metro area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden supported the building. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes asked if the City should be concerned with filling this space given the <br />fact that additional office space would be opening up on TCAAP. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.