02-05-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 3 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding the proposed truck movements and number of trucks that would be moving through the site. He believed that the site was a little tight for the proposed truck movements. Matt Ritton, Boston Scientific, explained the volume of trucks per day would be between zero and five or six. He indicated this would be a very low volume dock compared to the other docks at Boston Scientific. He noted this building expansion would have two bays for truck deliveries. He stated he understood the turning radius was tight, but because the volume of trucks would be quite low, he did not anticipate this would be a problem. Commissioner Subramanian questioned why the applicant was proposing two more dock bays if the truck volume would be low. Mr. Ritton reported this dock was on the research facility and would be used for receiving. He stated safety would be improved by adding this dock versus having on-grade deliveries.