CCP 06-25-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—NNE 6, 2001 11 the District was to promote high quality, large-scale development and take full advantage of the site's location. The proposed height of the two office buildings was 56 feet each, exceeding the 35-foot maximum for the District. The proposed antenna was 750 feet in height where only a maximum of 75 feet was permitted, if it was accessory to the primary use on the property. Mr. Cronin presented the structure setbacks by stating the building setback requirements for the District were as follows: 50 feet from streets and exterior property lines; 20 feet from side and rear property lines. The front yard was defined as the part of the lot that abuts a street. The proposed bisects the site although the property lines did not. The proposed office buildings meet the setback requirements from both the proposed street and I-694, as shown on the plans. The proposed accessory structure below the antenna did not meet the Ordinance requirements since it had been placed in the front yard of the lot. Front yards in this proposal were considered that property which abuts the proposed street(on both the North and South side) and the property abutting I-694. Any accessory structures on this property would have to be located in the side yard of the office buildings. Mr. Cronin presented by structure exteriors by explaining the Zoning Ordinance required that exterior wall surfaces in the GB District be brick, stone, glass or any combination of these. The exterior materials proposed for the office buildings and accessory structure are pre-finished aluminum,brick and glass. Pre-finished aluminum was not a material permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had supplied plans and elevations of the proposed office buildings. Although the accessory structure had been described in the narrative, there were no plans showing it in elevation, which should had been submitted. Mr. Cronin summarized the traffic study g statin the traffic study for the District was completed by BRW in 1998, analyzing potential development and still keeping Highway 96 and Round Lake Road within design capacity. SEH completed another traffic study in 2000, analyzing BRW's study and taking into consideration the potential development by Chesapeake Companies in the northeast quadrant of I-35W and I-694. The applicant obtained another traffic analysis from Biko and Associates, analyzing the traffic impact of the proposed development of the tower site. Mr. Cronin explained the conclusions of the traffic study stated that the 96/W. Round Lake Road intersection would operate at acceptable levels with the implementation of both the Chesapeake and Arden Towers projects. There would also be less than desirable operations at the 96/1-35W ramps and it was suggested that signalization should be reviewed for these areas. Biko suggested that improvements be made to the 96/1-35W bridge and improvements be made at the 96/10 intersection. Both of these areas are under review with Ramsey County and the State although they may not be scheduled for quite some time. Mr. Cronin summarized the parking requirements by explaining by the Zoning Ordinance,the parking requirement for an office development was 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. There was 265,514 square feet of office space,requiring 1,062 parking spaces which was satisfied by the proposal. Mr. Cronin stated the parking area includes surface parking and two, two level parking ramps. There must be a 50-foot landscape setback from all public streets and 20 feet from other property lines to surface parking areas. The parking ramps were not considered to be principal structures so they were subject to the accessory structure or parking setback requirements, since the Zoning Ordinance was unclear on this issue. The parking setbacks were more stringent and, therefore,