CCP 11-29-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3,1999 DRAFT 3 Business District, this percentage can be higher, however, there is a restriction on the entire area not to exceed certain limitations. Chair Erickson confirmed that the other buildings within this development had a 20/80 percent office to warehouse ratio. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson asked, if this request was approved and another tenant wanted more parking, would that tenant be pre- approved for these changes and if this sort of request would create problems Vvith parking at the other buildings. Ms. Randall stated that the approval is for this building only; however, if another tenant had a high percent of office use and was able to locate parking, they, too, could request an amendment. Chair Erickson expressed concern that this building would be approved at a higher office percentage and a future tenant having a need for this parking as well as loading dock area. Ms. Randall stated that the intent was to ensure that other tenants were not affected by this proposed setup. Chair Erickson noted the possibility of a future tenant moving into the applicant's space and needing a loading dock area. Ms. Randall stated that this was the reason for the condition that if the space changes hands the parking must be removed. She added that, any future tenant wishing to preserve the parking would have to come before the Planning Commission stating that they have no need for the loading dock area, or they would have to turn the parking area back into a loading dock. Chair Erickson asked what the parking setback was to the cul-de-sac at Round Lake Court. Ms. Randall stated that this was a 20- foot setback. Chair Erickson asked what the parking setback was to Gateway Boulevard. Ms. Randall stated that this was a 30-foot setback. She noted that some ofthe area between Gateway Boulevard and the parking lot to the south was currently used as open space and ponding. Chair Erickson asked if another row of parking could be added closer to Gateway Boulevard. Ms. Randall stated that parking could be added in some areas. However, this would infringe on a pond area. Chair Erickson asked if the Zoning Ordinance considers parking as part of the total lot coverage. Ms. Randall stated that the Zoning Ordinance considers parking only as it relates to landscaping. Chair Erickson stated that he would prefer that the applicant find additional parking some where other than the loading dock area. He asked if adding parking to the south near Gateway Boulevard would effect the required square footage of the previously approved development plan. Ms. Randall stated that the required square footage was at its maximum and, in order to deal with the ponding, mitigation would most likely be required. Since this development was approved as a plarmed unit development for four buildings, Chair Erickson stated that what is approved for one building should apply to the other three buildings. He asked if all four buildings were the Sanle size. Ms. Randall stated that the buildings are similar, with the exception of the Apache building which is different. Chair Erickson stated that it would be helpful to be able to review the entire development as he was concerned that there may be similar future requests for additional parking. He asked if each building had stand alone parking. Ms. Randall presented a draVving of the entire development and indicated the location of the parking lots for each building. She stated that each building does have stand alone parking. Chair Erickson noted that there was parking on the north and east side of the northern most building. He asked if parking could be added to the south side of this building. Ms. Randall stated that this building was full and was currently not using all of its parking.