Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN H1LLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3,2002 8 <br /> . want too add any more impervious parking surface than necessary. If parking was <br /> adequate to handle the facilities need, lrom staff's pcrspective proof of parking was <br /> acccptable. He indicated this is a generally accepted planning practice. He indicated that <br /> if parking bccame a problem on the property, the City would address this issue and <br /> Guidant would nced to add additional parking at that time, <br /> Commissioner Zimmernlan asked ifthe setback variance was a neccssity. He asked if it <br /> were denied, would this be a hardship, Mr. Larson stated Guidant had no intent of <br /> leaving the area any time soon, and he did not believe this setback would affect the <br /> property_ <br /> Mr. Parrish stated it was anticipated Guidant might come forth for a preliminary plat at <br /> thc next Planning Commission meeting, The City Council would makc the ultimate <br /> determination regarding the vacation of easements and the strect. <br /> Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Femwood Avenue would still be a public street. <br /> Mr. Larson replicd it would still he a public street until vacated, at which time it would <br /> become a service drivc. <br /> Commissioner Duchenes asked whcre the additional landscaping would be located. Mr. <br /> Larson pointed out where the landscaping would be placed, <br /> . Commissioner Ricke stated this would still be less landscaping than what was rcquired. <br /> Mr. Parrisb replied that was correct, but there were a number of foundation plantings that <br /> did not show up on thc caliper inch level, but these foundation plantings also added to the <br /> acsthctics of the property. He also indicated this facility had courtyards and other site <br /> amenitics that are not taken into consideration with the currcnt landscaping requirements. <br /> Chair Sand statcd it appeared thc landscaping they were proposing to add would be <br /> removed at a future timc if the PUD werc approved. Mr. Larson replied that was correct <br /> and Guidant was willing to do that. <br /> Mr. Parrish statcd as the site devcloped, the landscaping wOLtld be continually evaluated <br /> and if landscaping were to be takcn out around the training center, tbe City would <br /> reevaluate the landscaping at thattimc. <br /> Mr. Frank expressed concern about how the application and requcst for approval was <br /> framed. He stated it seemcd to him that this was inappropriate and moved the project <br /> way beyond what should be happening at this stage. He indicated there were many <br /> studies that had not been completed yet and these studies were important to the overall <br /> development of the site. He stated vacating Femwood Avenue to put in the skyway was <br /> not appropriate at this time. He stated the only purpose for vacating Fernwood Avenue at <br /> this time was to put into place the lramework for Guidant's Master Plan. He stated the <br /> Commission's approval should be lor a stand-alonc facility at this time. <br /> . Mr. Parrish stated thc project could be stand alone. He explained that the condition of <br /> approval relative to this item takes into account both scenarios_ He indicated that if <br /> Femwood was not vacated, it wonld be necessary for Guidant to obtain an easement from <br /> the City to encroach on its right of way, <br />