CCP 04-30-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—APRIL 4, 2001 12 variance review since it truly relates to the flexibility offered in a PUD. Therefore, a hardship did not need to be identified. The following points should be considered when evaluating the height of the proposed parking structure: • A master plan was approved in Planning Case #99-07, showing the future build out of the property and the need for a parking ramp to accommodate the parking needs of the structures. A parking ramp was envisioned as part of the master plan, making this situation unique from others that have not planned for, and built according to, this need. • Since a master building plan has already been approved on this site, with a required number of parking spaces, it is the choice of the City to have the parking take up more horizontal surface area or to maintain existing greenspace and build parking vertically (both of which vary from the Zoning Ordinance). The trade-off in permitting a higher structure, as proposed, is that greenspace is preserved on-site. In staff s opinion, the other option does not provide any additional benefit, increasing the amount of hardcover in order to restrict a structure to 35' in height, especially when no other industrial district is that restrictive on height (permitting 45'). Ms. Chaput explained, Guidant was unable to provide an illustration of their future (20 years)build out plans due to a confidentiality agreement on a potential land purchase. Generally, Guidant had informed staff that there was a possibility of acquiring additional land for expansion and that plans indicate a potential increase in office buildings (possibly four additional buildings, ranging from two to seven stories in height) and the resulting required parking (possibly six parking structures between five and eight stories in height). Staff had been informed that the applicant would be able to disclose this information to the Planning Commission in greater detail at the meeting with a visual aid. Other Comments The following comments were provided by the City Engineer and should be incorporated into the final plans: a) The developer should provide a detailed removals plan and summary of trees to be removed along with proposed landscaping plan; b) The ditch subdrain does not have an outlet illustrated on the plans — this should be reviewed by the developer and added to the final plans; c) The proposed roadway widths and geometry should be shown on the plans; d) The plans should include the proposed pavement sections for roadways and driveways; e) The plans should indicate how construction access will work while maintaining emergency access to the site and vehicle access to the remaining parking lots; f) The project may require additional hydrant(s) around the structure — defer to the Fire Marshall for these requirements; g) It appears that a retaining wall will be needed between the proposed access drive and the existing parking lot to the east—this should be reflected on the proposed plans; h) The main access to County Road F is 24 feet wide and the proposed plans do not indicate any widening of this. Recommend the developer review this and consider a three lane (36 - 40 foot wide) access with two exist lanes (striped accordingly) and one entrance lane; and