CCP 09-11-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - August 28, 2000 4 . unknown who the tenants would be of these buildings at that time, a presumption was made on . the ratio of office to warehouse within the buildings. The PUD was approved with thc requirement that each of the three buildings have 20% office space and 80% warehouse space. In Section VI (f) #1 (j) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires office users to provide one parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area and industrial users to provide one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of gross industrial space provided. As a result of reviewing the original PUD, it appears that each of the buildings were set up with the proper amount of parking for 20% of/ice and 80% warehouse. If the office component was to expand within one building, the amount of parking would need to expand and 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 if the 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 developed together, parking requirements for each building are calculated separately. Overall, each building is only permitted to bave 20% office and 80% warehouse, with the exception of the property at 1987 Gateway Boulevard which is permitted 34% ortice and 66% warehouse by a variance granted following the eonstlUction of the buildings. Staff did not recommend that changes to the allowable office 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 level. Staff can review relocation and parking space striping to ensure that it meets the zoning and building code. If the request does not meet the minimum requirements of the codes as a result of the request then 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 properties be permitted administratively. Ms. Chaput stated that for Planning Case #00- I 7c, Planned Unit Development Amendment for the properties at 1987 and 1887 Gateway Blvd., the Planning Commission recommends that: 1. Administrative approval to changes in the allowable office build-out square footage for the property at 1887 Gateway Boulevard is permitted for up to 25% office and 75% warehouse on the condition that if staff does not feel comfortable with the request for any reason, the applicant must go before the Planning Commission. 2. The property located at 1987 Gateway Boulevard was granted a variance in Planning Case #99023 to allow 34% office and 66% warehouse with no changes being made to this variance as a result ofthis planning case. 3. ^dministrative approval of relocation and replacement or striping of additional parking spaces for the properties at 1887 and 1987 Gateway Boulevard is permitted on the condition that if staff does not feel comfortable with the request for any reason, the applicant must go before the Planning Commission. .