08-08-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 5 . was not allowed due to the zoning. He indicated after a couple of Work Sessions, Council directed staff to see if there was other interest in the property. In January, staff had contacted three different companies to see if there was any interest in the property. In addition, over the last 12 months, the City also had a number of requests from individuals who were interested in purehasing this property for a small strip mall as well as an interest from a Charter School, which did not meet the zoning. Councilmember Holden asked how this development changed from a 40,000 square foot project to a 70,000 office condominium development. Mr. Clark replied Council had agreed to a development that was approximately 70,000 square feet not 40,000 square feet which was written into the Purchase Agreement under 11.3 of the Development Permits. He indicated one of the reasons they put this in there was that they wanted to separate out the Purchase Agreement from the Planned Unit Development process and by the City acting on the Purchase Agreement they did not want to give approval for the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Filla stated hc was given the terms to be put into the agreement and the agreement indicated the general nature to be an office complex of that number of feet, but it did not obligate the City to approve this and if it was not approved by the City, the developer had the option to get out of the agreement and get his money back. . Council member Holden asked if this would be considered maximum density or medium density. Mr. Clark replied he believed this would be a medium density. Couneilmember Larson stated he believcs what the developer proposed in tern1S of building, were attraetive and nice looking. He stated the development was an attractive development for a business condominium development and while he generally did not like parking in front of the buildings, but in this case they did the right thing because otherwise the parking and the parking lots would be closest to the south lot line where the residences were located. He noted by eliminating the Hamline access it would incur less impervious surface and runoff. He asked why they needed even five extra parking places over the City Code if the City Code required 297 parking spots. He stated if the developer was not opposed, he would like to see the parking match the City Code. He expressed concern that the signs on the buildings were relatively large, which he believcd would detract from the attractiveness of the development. He personally would like to see the signs smallcr and a restrietion that there was one sign per owner, even if an owner owned more than one unit. He asked about the park dedication fee and if this was the standard amount for the park dedication fee. Mr. Clark responded the park dedication fee was the amount they had agreed to in the development agreement. Council member Holden stated this was a nice development, but she expressed concern about the lack of green space in this development and this was not what she had envisioned when she thought there was going to be three-unit buildings. . Mayor Aplikowski stated she believed there was going to be more green space added in again.