PC 06-01-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1,2005 8 Vice Chair Zimmerman asked if it was the intent to sell each individual office . condominium to individual businesses. Mr. Black replied that was correct, with the exception of units 26-30. Vice Chair Zimmerman asked if they had established any association rules yet. Mr. Black replied they had not worked on those covenants yet, but they were very easy to put together. He stated they were okay with including no subleasing into their restrictions. He stated they could eliminate restaurants in this development as they were not intending on putting in any restaurants. He also stated he was not sure there would be any retail businesses in this building. He noted they intended to market this to professionals such as accountants, attorneys, real estate developers, etc. Mr. Black indicated there was one minor modification made on the south end of the development where the Rice Creek Watershed was requiring them to not encroach upon the wetland at all, so they needed to reduce some of the parking along the south line by eliminating four parking spaces to address the Rice Creek Watershed's concern. Michael Spack, Traffic Data, Inc., stated he had met with the Ramsey County Traffic Engineer and they agreed on the parameters of the study. He stated they had addressed the proposed driveway on both Highway 96 and Hamline Avenue. He summarized parts of his report for the Commission. Commissioner Bezdicek asked how people going north on Hamline Avenue would get . into traffic. Mr. Spack replied they would need to sit in traffic at the stop light and there would be gaps in traffic to get onto Hamline Avenue. Commissioner Bezdicek asked how many parking spaces were there in this development. Commissioner Larson noted there were 306 parking spaces. Mr. Spack stated the County Traffic Engineer also believed that the traffic numbers would actually go down with the improvement of Lexington Avenue this summer. Vice Chair Zimmerman invited anyone for or against the variance to come forward and make comment. Audrey Guttersen, 1389 Arden View Drive, (by letter) stated: "I am writing in regards to concems I have for the proposed office park. I will be in MI on June I so won't be able to attend the hearing on June 1. I am the owner of I 389 Arden View Drive. My unit is one of two closest to the proposed PUD. I have several concerns about the planned lighting: The lighting pedestal closest to Lot 20 is very close to my residence and the illumination would be annoying. Is that light necessary for your adequate illumination? I am also concerned about the removal of trees from AHNA common land on the south . boundary of the proposed office park. My residence now is a beautiful wooded lot and abounding with wildlife - deer, wild turkeys, ducks, fox, and birds. I would like you to investigate building a berm along the southernmost boundary next to the proposed road and have well established trees planted on this berm. This would