CCP 08-28-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Planning Casc #99-23 (Exhibit F) amended the parking requircments for thc propcrty at 1987 Gateway Blvd. from the original PUD to allow for a greater percentage of office to warehouse. Use Case #99-23 Parking Required 143 s aces 69 s aces 212 s aces Parking Provided 214 s aces As a result ofreviewing the original PUD, it appears that each of the buildings were set up with thc proper amount of parking for 20% office and 80% warehouse. If the office component was to expand within one building, the amount of parking would need to expand ,md there just is not sufficient room on site to accommodate this. In my opinion, this would require further review by the planning commission and could not be approved administratively due to the site constraints. Also, Section VI (F) #1 (f) states that proof of parking may be shown ifthe number of parking spaces (by the ordinance) are not required by the use, requiring approval from the Planning Commission and the City Council. . Although these buildings were all devcloped together, parking requirements for each building are calculated separately. Each building is only pcrmitted to have 20% office and 80% warehouse, with the exception ofthe property at 1987 Gatcway Blvd which is permitted 34% officc and 66% warehouse by a variance granted following the construction of the buildings. Staff does not recommend that changes to the allowable officc build-out square footage be made administratively. 2. Relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces Relocating parking on a site to accommodate minor changes should be attainable at an administrative leyeJ. Staff can review relocation and parking space striping to ensure that it mcets the zoning and building code. Ifthe requcst does not meet the minimum requircments of the codes (ex. Landscape requirements) as a result of the request thcn the applicant would need to go before the Planning Commission. Staff would recommend that the relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces for these propcrties be permitted administratively. . Deadline for A!!cncv Actions The City of Arden Hills received a complete application for this request (PC#00-17) on March 9, 2000. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 8, 2000 (60 days), unless the City providcs the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review pcriod. A letter was sent to the applicant, extending thc review period and additional sixty days to July 7, 2000. A letter was also scnt to the City waiving the sixty-day time limit on this application on July 7, 2000. 3