CC 02-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 26,2001 4 . · Alternating (offset) panel attachment to the posts; and · Use of the dark chocolate brown stain color. The Council also directed staff to request the Arden Manor Park owners to inform mobile home park residents of the proposed noise wall project. Mr. Post stated Mr. Gedstad, MnDOT Project Engineer, had previously indicated that there would be aesthetic treatment upcharges to the City for decorative trim ($9,000.00), concrete post endcaps ($12,250.00), and integral colored concrete posts ($104,085.00). MnDOT had since indicated they would provide the decorative trim at no cost to the City. The Arden Manor Park owners issued a February 1, 2001 letter to park residents informing them of the proposed noise wall and informing them to forward comments to the City by February 16,2001. To date, the City had only received one comment about the project and that was in support of the project. Staff recommended the City adopt the resolution. Councilmember Rem asked for clarification regarding the decorative trim. Mr. Post replied the State would charge for the posts and endcaps, but not the decorative trim. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-07, A Resolution Approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation Proposal (S.P. 6284-130) to Construct a Noise Wall on the East Side ofI-35W from C.S.A.H. 96 to Railroad Overpass. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). . AI. Case #01-01, Corporate Express, 1233 West County Road E, Site Plan Review Mr. Lynch explained that the applicant, Corporate Express, was requesting a site plan review of the existing facility at 1233 W. County Road E, for additional dock doors on the west side of the building, a dock addition on the north side of the building and a revised parking plan to accommodate interior and exterior remodeling. Mr. Lynch reviewed the past planning cases for the Corporate Express property. He noted that Planning Case 69-23 reviewed two variances for this property: rear yard setback (18' where 20' was required for overall expansion; allowing as close as 2' for the NE corner of the structure) and building coverage (47% where 40% was the maximum permitted). The applications were unanimously approved and, therefore, any variances approved with this structure, remain a part of the property until which time that the building was removed. There were a number of existing issues with this property, greatly the result of variances granted in the past, hindering future expansion and reasonable attempts by the applicant to bring the property into conformance. Mr. Lynch presented the site plan as follows: . 1. Building Setbacks. The proposed dock addition on the north side of the building was shown at 16' from the rear property line. It must be no closer than 18' to be in conformance with variance #69-23.