CCP 09-17-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment B: Plannin!! Commission Meeting Exeerot Allied Towers stated that ice heavy enough to do damage would fall within a radius of no more than 20 feet from the tower. e Mr. Cronin stated although the memorandums stated that it was safe to place office buildings and parking structures beneath a tower of this magnitude, staff was still concerned about the safety and well being of the residents and business people who would be on this property from day to day. Falling ice from not only the tower but the guyed wires was of concern, even though the area was proposed to be fenced. Additionally, long-range trail plans include a trail around Round Lake, including a portion through this property. If deveiopment occurred on the property, a pedestrian trail easement would be requested. Mr. Cronin summarized the drainage, wetlands and ftoodplain requirements by explaining the application proposed to enhance or restore the wetlands on the property back to their original state since they had declined as a result of unimproved roads and the pasteurization of horses on the property for some time. Three detention basins were provided to collect storm water runoff, designed to NURP standards so that the storm water is treated prior to discharge. By this proposal, the wetland on the west side of the property will be eliminated and mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. The mitigation area would be provided on the east side of the larger wetland and within the three retention basins constructed on the site. The larger wetland on the eastern portion of the site would not be disturbed with development The applicant had prepared a wetland delineation report. Approval of the plan, following City Council approval, would be required by Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Cronin advised the City of Arden Hills received the complete application for this request on May 9, 2001. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue the City must act on this request by July 8, 2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The additional review period would extend to August 7, 2001. The City may, with the petitioner's consent, extend the review period beyond the August 7, 2001 date. . Mr. Cronin stated if the City denied the petitioner's request, "... it must state in writing the reason for the denial at the time that it denies the request." Mr. Cronin presented staff's preliminary comments on Planning Case #01-10 based on the following: 1. It should be clarified if the proposed antenna tower is 700 feet (per the plans) or 750 feet in height (per the narrative); 2. The antenna tower could not be reconstructed for the following reasons: . The tower is currently a nonconforming structure that can not be rebuilt without conforming with the Zoning Ordinance; . The tower is not permitted as a principal use on the property; . The tower exceeds the maximum allowable height of 75 feet; . The tower is nearer to the property line than the height of the tower. 3. No more than 50% of a project's total ftoor area may be office; 4. The height of the proposed office buildings shall not exceed 35 feet; 5. The confticting Zoning Ordinance text regarding the maximum height requirement and percentage of office within the District should be discussed and clarified by the City; 6. The accessory structure for the antenna must be located in the side or rear yard, not the front, and additional elevation information is needed to properly evaluate the structure; 7. Exterior materials for the office buildings and accessory structure include pre-finished aluminum which is not identified as a permitted material; 8. A pedestrian trail easement by Round Lake would be requested as part of this development; 9. Surface and ramped parking requires a setback of 50 feet from the proposed and existing street which is not met; 10. The proposed street should be public with a required right-of-way width of no less than 60 feet . for a local street, since it is located on an existing 66 foot public utility easement; 11. The development of the property requires direct access to Gateway Boulevard which it currently does not have;