CC 01-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 29,2001 12 13. Movement ofthe City's storm water pond to the east, as proposed, was not recommended; and Wetland mitigation should consider the existing trunk sanitary sewer since the City would not relocate this when other options might exist. 14. Mr. Post stated he had received a reply from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban today commenting on the Planning Commission's recommendations. Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Companies, introduced John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. Mr. Carlson and Mr. Shardlow presented the proposed site alternatives and general overview regarding the development. Councilmember Larson stated if there was a window of time this needed to be completed by because the City, having to exercise eminent domain, may not fit into that window. Mr. Carlson responded he understood that and they would work with the City regarding this issue. Councilmember Grant asked if they had any idea which concept they would be using. Mr. Carlson stated they did not have any indication at this time. The idea was to make the most use of the site as possible. Mr. Filla stated the City was contractually obligated to leave the two billboards there. He asked what would happen to the two outlots if the billboards would not be there in the future. He requested language be inserted stating the outlots were non-conforming City lots, and if the billboards would be removed in the future, language be added as to how the land would be used at that time. Councilmember Larson indicated Concept A was more favorable than Concept B. He was concerned about the parking area surrounding buildings and asked if this could be looked at to determine if there was another alternative. Steve Dowdy, Pope & Associates, responded what was being presented was a feasibility study. He stated they tried to limit the surface parking by adding a parking deck, but parking needs were a great concern of tenants. He stated the parking in the front of the building could not be underground parking because of the water table. Councilmember Aplikowski asked how much higher than 35 feet the proposal for the five-story building would be. Mr. Dowdy replied it would be approximately 75 feet tall. Each floor level would be approximately 14 feet high. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she did not have any concerns with the height, but wanted to make sure they also followed the Ordinance as much as possible and not keep requesting variances. She asked Council look at the height Ordinance in the future. She stated she had a concern that the complex appeared to be a strictly office showroom building and was not sure that fit into what they originally envisioned this development would be.