CCP 04-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 1999 ~~~~i 12 Commissioner Rye expressed his concern that if the buildings were to bum down, the applicant - would have to come back with requests for more variances. Additionally, there may be problems ,., if the property were to be sold in the future. Mr. Sikora stated that the property is not unique and it goes back to the days when Control Data owned the property. Mr. Sikora stated that CSM Corporation bought the parcel from Control Data for the first two buildings to the south. DynaMark had originally occupied the existing Control Data building and leased the other two from CSM Corporation. Control Data then sold the large parcel to the north to CSM Corporation. Approximately one year ago, DynaMark approached CSM Corporation indicating that they had outgrown their campus. CSM knew that one more building could be added to the property. The question was how to do this and there were a number of tradeoffs. CSM Corporation felt that the proposed configuration was the best for a number of reasons. The existing building is 40 years old and accessibility and the exterior conditions are poor. It was felt that a good solution would be to build an addition and upgrade the existing building. CSM Corporation has worked closely with Dave Scherbel, the City Building Inspector, throughout the process. Per Code requirements the buildings could stand on their own. Commissioner Rye expressed his concern that the strange lot split would be creating odd parcels which, while may be convenient for the property owners now, may be a problem if the property were sold in the future. e Mr. Sikora stated that, because of the necessary legal work with the property, the proposed split is not convenient. He indicated that the existing buildings had been connected to the Control Data building utilities. Utilities had been purchased from Control Data for the four buildings. With the new addition, the utilities had been disconnected from Control Data and the property now stands on its own. Mr. Sikora indicated that there are different mortgages, lenders, lease terms, and leasing agencies on each parcel. CSM Corporation was able to save a large amount of money by constructing the addition since the existing building contained large electrical, heating and air conditioning services. This made it possible to supply utilities to the building addition from the existing building. Because of this, enough money was saved to update the exterior of the existing building and re-light all the existing parking lots and update the landscaping as required by the City Council. Chair Erickson requested background information regarding the Control Data split and why this was done. Mr. Ringwald explained that there were three parcels, two of which cut through the middle of the buildings. The lot split had essentially been done for the same reasons as this request. There were different mortgages and different owners. This is not unusual, particularly with shopping centers developments. Many shopping centers are owned by groups and the lot lines are often stranger than this request. Mr. Ringwald stated that the key issue from Staff's perspective would be that these lot lines . remain invisible. The Control Data campus has stood the test of time, even though the owners have changed over time. This is due to the fact that easements and agreements were in place to ensure that, regardless of who owned which part, the property was being maintained as a single property without being split by fencing.