02-04-15 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 8 would be reduced as a result of the elimination of Buildings H and G. No additional buildings are proposed at this time on Lot 1. Associate Planner Bachler noted that the Campus Master Plan also shows modifications to the existing surface parking lot located between Buildings A, B, and C and Buildings E and D to create a clearly defined border along the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. This would be accomplished by removing existing bituminous surfaces and installing landscaping. A Site Plan Review would be required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council before this work is undertaken. At that time, the City would evaluate items such as grading, landscaping requirements, and parking lot setbacks in detail. Boston Scientific expects to apply for a Site Plan Review in Fall 2015 or Spring 2016 to complete the necessary site modifications to demarcate the properties. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the Campus Master Plan indicates a future second access drive for Lot 1 on Hamline Avenue, just north of the existing entrance to this site. The new access is not being evaluated as part of this proposal. Boston Scientific has included this access drive as a possible option for a future property owner or tenant on the site depending on their needs. Construction of this access would require a Site Plan Review as well as approval through the Ramsey County Public Works Department. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the future development plan for the Boston Scientific Campus would be phased over the next 20 years. The construction of new buildings and parking ramps will be coordinated with the future growth of Boston Scientific Corporation. As is the case with the existing PUD, any new building construction or site modifications identified on the approved Campus Master Plan will require the submittal of a Site Plan Review for City Council approval prior to construction. Proposed construction or site modifications not conforming to the approved Campus Master Plan would require an amendment to the PUD. This requirement would apply to both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Planned Unit Development process is a tool that provides additional flexibility for development that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. For example, a PUD may make exceptions to setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, signage, building materials, or landscaping requirements. It is intended to overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and improve the overall design of a project. While the PUD process allows the City to negotiate certain aspects of the development, any conditions imposed on the PUD must have a rational basis related to the expected impact of the development. A PUD cannot be used to permit uses that would not otherwise be permitted in the underlying zoning district. Associate Planner Bachler reported that in the original Master PUD approval, the City granted the Guidant Corporation flexibility in terms of their front yard setback, building height, structure coverage, and the number of principal buildings allowed on a single lot. The minimum front yard setback for the I-1 District is 55 feet and in the approved PUD, a 50-foot setback was permitted but was applied to the setbacks along all property lines, including rear and side lot lines. The 2002 Campus Master Plan included several proposed buildings with a height in excess of the 35- foot height maximum with the tallest, Building K, proposed at 135 feet. The maximum structure coverage allowed in the I-1 District is 30 percent and at full build out the Master Plan envisioned 32.7 percent structure coverage. Finally, the Zoning Code only permits one principal building per