CCP 09-13-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 DRAFT 10 Commissioner Baker moved, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval e of Planning Case 99-14, side yard setback variance (5 feet proposed when 10 feet is required) for an attached garage and living space addition. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, September 13, 1999, City Council meeting. PLANNING CASE #99-15 - GUIDANT (CPO - 4100 HAMLINE AVENUE NORTH- PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Ms. Randall explained that the applicant was proposing to update their Master Plan to include an auditorium addition to Building E and D. Secondly, the applicant was requesting approval of an amendment to their previously approved planned unit development to allow for the expansion of Building E to include an auditorium at their campus which is located at 4100 Hamline Avenue. The applicant proposed, and was granted approval, to expand onto Building E due to the growth ofthe research and development area ofthe company. At the time, a smaller auditorium was planned inside the expansion. After further review of their needs and layout of the proposed expansion, they discovered that they would better benefit from a larger auditorium linked to the research and development area. The use of the auditorium will be for internal meetings primarily . conducted every month discussing development or new products. The Master Plan would meet the parking requirements if fully developed. The applicant has taken steps by submitting the required paperwork to Ramsey County for the combination ofthe campus lot to the lot they own to the north. The auditorium proposal is short 29 parking spaces. The applicant was requesting these spaces be shown as proof of parking and not be constructed at this time. The applicant has stated the use of the auditorium to be internal use thus, extra parking spaces will not be needed. Staff was recommending that the 29 parking spaces shown as proof of parking be provided ifthe use of the auditorium changes. The exterior of the proposed auditorium addition was designed to match the existing exterior of Building E. It would meet the zoning ordinance height, floor area ratio, lot coverage and landscape lot area criteria. The applicant was proposing to add a fence and gates at the entrance to Building D. The fencing and gates will match the existing fences and gates on the campus. This was to allow the applicant to enclose the loading dock area if needed. The proposed master plan would meet all setback requirements with the exception of Building H. This setback will increase when the property to the north is combined. As evident by reviewing the parking capacity after the expansion to Building E, or reviewing the master plan, the need for a parking structure is not too far in the future, given the growth experienced by the applicant. The applicant and the City will need to be mindful ofthis fact as future development scenarios are proposed on the campus. . The applicant was not showing any modifications to their existing signage as a result of this application. The applicant was proposing one light pole along the sidewalk entering the