CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 7, 1999 8 Ms. Randall indicated that the plan included in the agenda packets depicted an entrance on the Control Data private drive. Staff had noted in the staff report that they wanted proof that the . applicant had rights to access off this private drive. Staff had since been informed that the applicant does have an agreement with Control Data for access from this location. However, the applicant has modified their plans to access off the public street. The applicant has kept the curb cut as far to the south as possible, keeping it away from the intersection of Fernwood Avenue and Control Data's private road. This change does not impact the parking lot and, in fact, creates a better situation. The building would have some rooftop mechanicals, which will be screened to prevent direct viewing of this equipment. Lighting will be added to the parking lot area as well as locating some lighting in front of the proposed new building. These lights are proposed to meet the current lighting Ordinance. Ms. Randall advised that staff recommends approval of Planning Case 99-07, Master Plan/Planned Unit Development amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. Show documentation of access to the private drive or relocate the parking lot entrance. Ms. Randall stated that condition number one could be stricken as this had been satisfied with the change in access. 2. Applicant provide documentation for permanent easement for the parking lot for review by the City Attorney, or some other alternative. . Ms. Randall explained that because the parcel with the buildings and the parcel to the north for the proposed parking lot are separate parcels, staff had a concern that in the future the northern parcel may be sold off or changed in some way which would result in the campus not having adequate parking. The applicant is working on a solution to satisfY this condition. One solution, which the applicant had discussed with staff, was to combine the two parcels to provide proof of parking for the future. Staff was agreeable to this suggestion. 3. Provide erosion control in the area that will be disturbed. 4. Lighting meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section. 5. Rice Creek Watershed approval. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this Planning Case, then it would be heard at the May 24, 1999, regular meeting of the City Council. Mr. Dave Reimer of Guidant Corporation stated that he was available to answer questions. With regard to condition number two, Chair Erickson asked if the amount of parking, demonstrated in the revised Master Plan, accounted for all the parking needs of the development. Ms. Randall stated that the parking needs of the development are dealt more with the parking ramps. The original Master Plan did not show the two proposed parking areas, however, there was parking in the location of the proposed addition to Building E. For the addition to Building . E, the plan is showing two additional alternate parking locations. Chair Erickson asked Ms. Randall to further explain the statement regarding the parking ramps. Ms. Randall explained that, because the site is nearing a completely developed site, in order to