CCP 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMM:ISSION - MAY 7,1999 DRAFT 9 construct additional buildings and maintain the parking requirements, the applicant might have to build a parking ramp structure for more parking. Staff wanted to ensure that the applicant was aware ofthis. Chair Erickson requested confirmation that the future proposed Building H would not meet the required setback from the property line. Ms. Randall eXplained that if the two parcels were combined as suggested, the setback would not be required. Chair Erickson asked if there had been a plan for a future variance request ifthe parcels were not combined. Ms. Randall stated that there was. Commissioner Nelson asked, ifthe property is not combined with the property to the north, what would the easement requirements be. Ms. Randall stated that the easement would be granted from the eastern property to the western property to give parking rights. This would require that if the property were sold, the new owner would be required to maintain the parking rights. Commissioner Nelson noted that the parking requirements for the property are 1,897 parking spaces and the proposal is for a total of 1,454 parking spaces. He asked how these numbers work out and how they tie in with the future parking. Commissioner Sand noted that the chart in the staff report shows that only 1,387 parking spaces are required. Mr. Ringwald explained that the 1,897 parking spaces are required for when the campus is completely built out and this is the reason behind the potential need for a parking ramp. With the current expansion, the parking requirement is 1,387 spaces and the applicant is proposing to provide 1,454 parking spaces. Commissioner Baker asked if, when the campus is built to maximum, would a parking ramp fit within the lot coverage requirements. Ms. Randall stated that it would. Commissioner Baker asked why a trail easement was not being recommended. Mr. Ringwald stated that the construction plan for the trail includes two alternatives and both could occur within the right-of-way whether it was on the north or the south side of the road. Commissioner Baker noted that the last time Guidant had been before the Planning Commission, a neighboring resident had expressed concern for overflow parking on the streets when annual events are held on campus. Mr. Reimer explained that a quality celebration is held every July. Commissioner Baker asked if it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to include language in the conditions for approval providing guidance for the parking during this event. Mr. Ringwald stated that this event is no different from another celebration. StafIwill work with the applicant and the property owners to ensure this issue is satisfied and mail can be delivered. He noted that parking on the street is legal in the area. Commissioner Sand confirmed that condition number one can be removed because of the relocation of the parking lot entrance. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Commissioner Nelson suggested a statement be added to condition number two to allow the applicant to combine this parcel with the parcel to the north. Ms. Randall concurred. Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Baker to recommend approval of Planning Case 99-07, Master PlanlPlanned Unit Development amendment, subject to the following conditions: