Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 14 <br /> Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, stated applicant's tower was no longer in compliance with State <br /> guidelines and that was the reason they were requesting this proposal. Mr. Habiger summarized <br /> applicant's proposal and presented site plans for the area. <br /> Mr. Habiger clarified that all of the panels on the building would be glass with the pre-finished <br /> aluminum being around the glass. <br /> William Smith, Transportation Planner with Biko Associates, summarized the traffic study and the <br /> development of Chesapeake Companies. He indicated two traffic studies had been prepared on the <br /> site, one before the Chesapeake office development was developed and the other one prepared in <br /> 2000. The results from the first study indicated the intersection could accept an additional 1,100 <br /> cars during peak hours. He stated while the intersection could handle the additional cars, there was <br /> concern regarding the ramp terminals on and off of I35W. He indicated traffic signals would <br /> probably fix any problems with those ramp terminals. However, any improvements with the <br /> ramps would probably not be made until 2003. <br /> Commissioner Pakulski inquired about the lane width. Mr. Smith replied the lane width was <br /> chosen for traffic calming purposes and there would be no parking allowed on the street. <br /> Tom Stella, United Properties, summarized the market conditions for office space versus <br /> office/warehouse space. <br /> Mr. Habiger addressed the concerns regarding the tower including safety issues raised by staff. <br /> Mr. Habiger stated applicant had a contractual obligation for the tower for the next 17 years and it <br /> would be a financial hardship for applicant to take the tower down and redevelop the site. Mr. <br /> Habiger restated that the current design of the tower did not meet the Code requirements. <br /> Dan Vaughn, Arden Towers, stated the existing tower had been there for 20 years and the tower <br /> they were talking about replacing it with would be a tower almost identical in appearance to the <br /> one that was there now. The new tower would have solid steel legs, instead of tubular steel legs, <br /> which would make it a stronger tower and therefore, it would hold more antennas. He indicated <br /> the tower served a large part of the community and it was a very important structure in the <br /> communication industry in the City. He stated it would be very difficult to take it down and find a <br /> replacement. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman asked what dictated the height of the tower. Mr. Vaughn stated 700 <br /> feet was what the tower was now, and that was what the new tower would be. There was a <br /> misprint in the application. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn had prepared a cost analysis as to building versus <br /> not building the new tower. Mr. Vaughn replied he would have to buy out his contractual <br /> obligations, and while he had not specifically looked at the financial end of this, he believed the <br /> tower was an asset to the City. <br /> Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Mr. Vaughn was under a contractual obligation to provide a <br /> safe tower. Mr. Vaughn replied that was correct. Is <br /> Commissioner Galatowitsch stated by adding buildings to the property, the tower would be an <br /> accessory use and the Code only allowed for a 75-foot tower under an accessory use. Mr. Vaughn <br />