CCP 02-26-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 7, 2001 4 Case 99,07, She noted Planning Case 99,07 illustrated a parking ramp on the west side ofthe wooded wetlands, adjacent to County Road F. Ms. Chaput stated it was approved in this location as a part of the Planning Case. Ms. Chaput explained in the Master PUD amendment, the parking ramp is proposed to be moved to the east of where it was approved in the previous case, replacing an existing surface lot. She stated this parking ramp is proposed to be constructed this year and will be reviewed through a site plan review application, Ms. Chaput noted the amendment also proposes an additional building, Building I, between Buildings E and D. She explained no additional plans have been submitted for review of this structure, as it is not as immediate as the parking ramp. Ms. Chaput indicated the Zoning Ordinance in Section 5, F, 4, states that the height of a structure in the 1,1 zoning district shall not exceed 35 feet. She stated this height applies to all structures. Ms. Chaput noted that the 1,2 and I,FLEX zones allow for a height of 45 feet. She explained the proposed structure exceeds the maximum height requirement, requiring a variance review (44 feet where 35 feet is permitted), She stated for this application for a height variance, staff can make the following findings: 1. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. A master plan was approved in Planning Case #99-07, showing the future build out of the property and the need for a parking ramp to accommodate the parking needs ofthe structures. A parking ramp was envisioned as part of the master plan, making this situation unique from others that have not planned for, and built according to, this need. 2, Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. The intent of the Ordinance is to, "promote the safe and efficient movement of people", "...protect the public health and welfare by providing the off-street parking of vehicles" and "to prevent the overcrowding of land". Since a master building plan has already been approved on this site, with a required number of parking spaces, it is the choice of the City to have the parking take up more horizontal surface area or to maintain existing greenspace and build parking vertically. It can be said that a parking ramp on this campus meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance to promote safety, better circulation and preserving greenspace. 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. The master plan that has already been approved can only be accomplished through the addition of a parking ramp. If the variance is not granted to allow this parking ramp, the building additions that have already been approved can not be built. The property can not be put to reasonable use (as already approved) without the height variance on the parking ramp. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. The City approved amendments to the master PUD for Guidant over numerous years, with the belief that a parking ramp would eventually be needed to accommodate parking on the campus. The applicant has City approval to go forward with building expansions and future buildings on the site. Although the applicant proposed more structures on the site, requiring additional parking, the City has approved the plans over time. Therefore, the hardship is not created by the property owner.