Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETmG MINUTES <br />JULY 11,2005 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked if the City had agreed to approximately 70,000 square feet. Mr. <br />Filla replied the agreement was approximately 70,000 square feet of office condominium. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked if the Council could reduce the number of buildings. Mr. Filla <br />replied this would not violate the terms of the agreement, but the developer had the option of <br />backing out of the agreement if this happened. <br /> <br />Mr. Eibensteiner stated they were at 74,000 square feet, so he did not know where 76,000 square <br />feet came from. Mr. Hellegers noted the original proposal came out to 76,000 square feet, but <br />once all of the numbers had been crunched, it came to approximately 74,000 square feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Eibennsteiner stated the Purchase Agreement was written at minimum of70,000 square feet <br />and they were at 74,000 square feet. He stated when the appraisal came in and they could go to <br />74,000 square feet he decided to take the property as is for 1.4 million. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated the Council would take public comment for 30 minutes. <br /> <br />Elwood F. Caldwell, 1451 Arden View Drive, stated he was representing the Arden Hills North <br />Homes Association development with 140 units. He stated he would not repeat the testimony at <br />the Planning Commission. He noted they were aware that the Planning Commission was a <br />recommending body only and others might voice objections to the project as a whole. He stated it <br />was their position not to do that, but rather in the first instance if Council did approve this that <br />they did not weaken the 18 conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. He called <br />their attention to condition 4, retail uses and that retail uses shall not be allowed to occupy the <br />development, except for accessory sales. He indicated the parking could be reduced and he <br />recommended Council reduce the parking. He stated the Planning Commission did not see fit to <br />adopt their recommendation for wall signage. He stated 30 square feet in the sign ordinance for <br />the NB zone was not intended for 30 units so close together and he recommended the signage be <br />limited to a maximum of 18 square feet for the outer units, with the middle units being allowed <br />six square feet. He noted signage was addressed under condition number 9. <br /> <br />Jeanine Yates, 1394 Arden View Drive, stated she was concerned about the environmental <br />impact, property depreciation, and stress for the elderly people in the area, and the lack of this <br />developer to communicate with the residents and City. She noted the Guidant developers worked <br />very well with the City, Council, and the residents to accommodate all of the concerns everyone <br />had. She asked why with this development, some things were not considered that would benefit <br />the community more also. <br /> <br />Gail Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, stated she opposed this development. She noted <br />they had a coalition of residents who would be speaking on various issues. She stated this <br />coalition had gathered 154 signatures from the resident opposing the development. She noted <br />there was an additional 17 signatures which she presented to Council tonight. She indicated there <br />was a broad range of locations of the residences who opposed this development. She stated the <br />residents did not want the trees and grcen space with a parking lot. She acknowledged the City <br />