Laserfiche WebLink
v <br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MAY 29, 2001 ,E .. 6 <br /> and tabled the Phase 1I plan. He noted the applicant would like to add 38 parking spaces to allow <br /> for additional parking. <br /> Mayor Probst asked if this modification still keeps the landscape plan within the requirements. <br /> Mr. Charles Hadgader, HKS services, responded that he represents the applicant. He stated in <br /> Phase I they would still comply with the landscape PUD requirements. He noted the Phase II <br /> plan would put them slightly under the 35 percent landscape requirement. <br /> Councilmember Larson asked if Mr. Hadgader's company was the manager of the building. Mr. <br /> Hadgader responded his firm is a consulting firm retained by Manufacturers' Services, a tenant in <br /> the building. <br /> Ms. Kelly Ortley, of United Properties, stated her company is the property manager and that <br /> Manufacturers' Services is the single tenant and has the need for this expansion. She noted this <br /> tenant has a longer-term lease. She added this project is what is needed to accommodate their <br /> building growth. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated in the past there has been some sentiment to have Untied <br /> Properties come in and tell the Council how they are going to rethink the way the parking is set <br /> up. Ms. Orley responded the Council would see that plan next month. She stated she had visited <br /> the Planning Commission two months ago and that they were asked to rethink the screening. She <br /> noted they have done so and would return to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion <br /> to approve Planning Case#01-12,PUD Amendment for Manufacturers' Services <br /> to expand the existing parking area of 408 spaces by 38 spaces in Phase I, subject <br /> to the seven stated conditions. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> 3. Case#01-11, City of Arden Hills, Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Lakeshore <br /> Setbacks) <br /> A. Ordinance#325 Adoption <br /> Mr. Lynch explained this is also an issue the Council has discussed previously. He stated there <br /> was a recent case before the city noting the Planning Commissions' recommendation to <br /> reconsider changing the Lakeshore Setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted at this time, <br /> staff has recommended consideration of making the setbacks consistent with the DNR <br /> requirements. He added this gives additional flexibility to the residents. He reviewed the <br /> classifications of the lakes and the changes. <br /> Mayor Probst asked if a public hearing was required. Mr. Lynch responded the public hearing <br /> was held at the Planning Commission's meeting. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to <br /> approve the amendment of Section 6 (C ) #1 (d) the Zoning Ordinances as per <br /> Ordinance#325. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br />