CCP 08-28-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PLi\NNfNG CASE OQ.,2LPEQPQSAL BY ROY A~ OAKS_ REALTY TO DEVELOP THE FORMER CITY HALL AND PUBLIC WORKS PROP~RTY INTO AN OFFICE P ARKCONT ATNING 62,432 QUAR-I.O fEET OF OFFICE SPACE. . STATEMENT BY THE BOARD Of DIRECTORS OF ARDEN HILLS NORTH HOMES ASSOCIATION Members of Arden Hills N0I1h Homes Association are the owners and with one or two exceptions residents of the 140 townhomes located immediately adjacent to and south of the property proposed for development, with addresses of 134] - ]481 Arden View Drive. Its governing body is a nine-member elected Board of Directors. The following statements represent the views of that Board. As pointed out in the past, we are not now and never have been opposed to development of the subject property as a townhouse-type office park per se. Our opposition to lhe predecessor proposal finally dcnied by the City Council on July 18,2005 concerned primarily matters of density, usage, setbacks, parking, access, and landscapc space. Some but not all of those concerns were alleviated during the July 18,2005 Councilmeeling and others have been alleviated in the proposal now presented as planning case 06-23. However, a maior concern now is that all of the conditions added to the previous proposal by the staff orthe Planning Commission via RGo;.(jljjtion 05-45 as presented (or as amended bv the CounciJ) be retained wherever applicable to the rc_vised development proposal, n(jtwithstandingdcJeat of Resolution 05-45 bv a 3-2 maioritv in favor, Accordingly, our analysis at this time will deal with Conditions 3- 6, 9, and 17 that were included in Resolution 05-45, now replaced If! the Slaff reconllnendatlons on Planning Case 06-23 by Conditions 6, 7,22,24 and 25__ . Occupancy and (Jsc. Conditions 6 and 7 deal with occupancy and use of each of the 23 units now proposed. Not more than one business shall be permitted 10 occupy anyone office condominium unit within the development, nor shall retail, rcstaurant, fast-lilod or residential uses be permilled, except retail use if incidental or accessory to the primary ol1ice use. We previously advocated such restrictions and continue to do so, including their jl.~lriev<cment through deed restrictions, covenants, or bvlaw rcquircll1<:l1ts. IIamIine Avenue Access. Resolution 05-45 defeated last year (by a Council vote or 3-2 in favor) included no Hamlinc A venue access, this having been deleted by an amendment adopted 4-1 earlier in the meeting. This is still what we would prefer. However, ifHamline Avenue access is to be provided, we support the Staff recommended Conditions 24 and 26 in their entirety, including right-in andright-out acces$onlv with no left turns, with minimum 30-tilOt radii on the northwest and southwest corners, and with appropriate signs placed prior to the road to the office development being opened up. .