CCP 06-25-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—JUNE 6, 2001 15 • replied it was always intended there would eventually be buildings on the property. However, the PUD did not reflect this. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if Mr. Vaughn wanted feedback on the whole concept, or on individual parts of the concept. Mr. Habiger replied before they went ahead with the office development, they wanted to have the new tower constructed with the existing tower removed. He stated they were looking for feedback on the overall concept to reconstruct the tower and the office development proposal. Acting Chair Sand asked for clarification on the March 20, 2001 letter addressed to HKS from Allied Tower regarding the "80-foot" communications tower. Mr. Habiger replied he believed that was a misprint. He stated it had always been proposed that the tower would be 700-feet. Acting Chair Sand stated in terms of the Planning Commission's obligations, the tower seemed to be non-conforming and therefore if a new tower was put in place of the old tower, the Commission would be approving a non-conforming structure and he indicated he had a concern about that. He expressed concern that more than 50% of a project's total floor area might be office space. He also expressed concern regarding the building height. With respect to the traffic study,the facts would be changing in the new few years, so the traffic study would be moot. Commissioner Zimmerman expressed concern about the current traffic congestion and he believed it was important the Planning Commission look at the traffic patterns and congestion. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if it was possible to have a traffic access off of Interstate 694 instead of off Highway 96. Mr. Habiger stated it was not permitted for a private development to have access onto an Interstate. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if they had looked at working with the Federal authorities for the possibility of adding some type of a frontage/service road along Interstate 694 and adding an access to Interstate 694 to the east. Mr. Habiger stated this would be the most desirable solution, except the developments to the east were residential developments and most residents would object to this type of an access. Mr. Habiger stated while there was no concern that the tower would fail at any time in the near future,the tower did not meet today's safety standards. Commissioner Pakulski expressed concern about the density of the office building. He stated he did not have a specific opinion with the tower, and he did not believe he had any authority to make a decision regarding the tower. Commissioner Zimmerman also expressed concern about the office density. With respect to the tower, he believed it would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and whether he agreed with it or not, that was what the current Ordinances were. He suggested Mr. Vaughn prepare an economic cost analysis. Commissioner Galatowitsch stated she was empathetic to Mr. Vaughn's concerns about the tower and believed the tower was an asset to the City. However, having the two uses on the property was a concern for her. She also expressed concern about ice falling from the tower and asked for further safety analysis regarding this.