My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-29-1999
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCP 11-29-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:46 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 11:28:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 3,1999 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Business District, this percentage can be higher, however, there is a restriction on the entire area <br />not to exceed certain limitations. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson confirmed that the other buildings within this development had a 20/80 percent <br />office to warehouse ratio. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson asked, if this <br />request was approved and another tenant wanted more parking, would that tenant be pre- <br />approved for these changes and if this sort of request would create problems Vvith parking at the <br />other buildings. Ms. Randall stated that the approval is for this building only; however, if <br />another tenant had a high percent of office use and was able to locate parking, they, too, could <br />request an amendment. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson expressed concern that this building would be approved at a higher office <br />percentage and a future tenant having a need for this parking as well as loading dock area. Ms. <br />Randall stated that the intent was to ensure that other tenants were not affected by this proposed <br />setup. Chair Erickson noted the possibility of a future tenant moving into the applicant's space <br />and needing a loading dock area. Ms. Randall stated that this was the reason for the condition <br />that if the space changes hands the parking must be removed. She added that, any future tenant <br />wishing to preserve the parking would have to come before the Planning Commission stating that <br />they have no need for the loading dock area, or they would have to turn the parking area back <br />into a loading dock. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked what the parking setback was to the cul-de-sac at Round Lake Court. Ms. <br />Randall stated that this was a 20- foot setback. Chair Erickson asked what the parking setback <br />was to Gateway Boulevard. Ms. Randall stated that this was a 30-foot setback. She noted that <br />some ofthe area between Gateway Boulevard and the parking lot to the south was currently used <br />as open space and ponding. Chair Erickson asked if another row of parking could be added <br />closer to Gateway Boulevard. Ms. Randall stated that parking could be added in some areas. <br />However, this would infringe on a pond area. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson asked if the Zoning Ordinance considers parking as part of the total lot coverage. <br />Ms. Randall stated that the Zoning Ordinance considers parking only as it relates to landscaping. <br />Chair Erickson stated that he would prefer that the applicant find additional parking some where <br />other than the loading dock area. He asked if adding parking to the south near Gateway <br />Boulevard would effect the required square footage of the previously approved development <br />plan. Ms. Randall stated that the required square footage was at its maximum and, in order to <br />deal with the ponding, mitigation would most likely be required. <br /> <br />Since this development was approved as a plarmed unit development for four buildings, Chair <br />Erickson stated that what is approved for one building should apply to the other three buildings. <br />He asked if all four buildings were the Sanle size. Ms. Randall stated that the buildings are <br />similar, with the exception of the Apache building which is different. <br /> <br />Chair Erickson stated that it would be helpful to be able to review the entire development as he <br />was concerned that there may be similar future requests for additional parking. He asked if each <br />building had stand alone parking. Ms. Randall presented a draVving of the entire development <br />and indicated the location of the parking lots for each building. She stated that each building <br />does have stand alone parking. Chair Erickson noted that there was parking on the north and east <br />side of the northern most building. He asked if parking could be added to the south side of this <br />building. Ms. Randall stated that this building was full and was currently not using all of its <br />parking. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.