Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 29, 2002 <br /> <br />~,...", f' r""" <br />t > ',~:,j I' -\ if-- Ll <br />~'i.i'<A //~;<t~ ~ <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />facility). The proposed plan also incorporated a skyway to existing Building E. The Planning <br />Commission recommended approval of the site plan subject to certain conditions. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated it seemed inappropriate to proceed with a plat that vacated a street until the <br />traffic analysis was completed and they knew what the inlplications were going to bc. He stated <br />Council needed to proceed carefully so that thcy did not approve more than they should. He asked <br />if the skyway was part of this request. If it was, and thcy were not in a position to vacate the road, it <br />would need to be built with the proper clearances. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish replied the intent was to proceed in a manner that was indcpcndent of other actions. He <br />stated Guidant could just plat the building. Hc indicated this could proceed as a stand-alone, <br />independent project. With respect to the skyway, he stated what they attempted to do was if it was <br />vacated, this would bc a non-issue, but if it was not vacated, there would nced to be an easement <br />issued over F ernwood A venuc. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated the two issues subject to review were the setback and the height, which was <br />open to some interpretation. Mr. Parrish replied with respect to the height issue, it was consistent <br />with the building. <br /> <br />Councilrnember Grant stated this was clearly part of the larger plan for Guidant and he indicated he <br />was supportive of the overall project, as well as this proposal. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilrnember Larson asked why staff did not put in the conditions that were attached to the <br />recommendation regarding the building materials being brick masonry. Mr. Parrish replied that was <br />what had bcen submitted and it would be in keeping with the site plan and therefore, it was not <br />necessary to put this as a recommendation. Hc stated it was required that the developmcnt be in <br />conformance with the site plan that had been submitted. <br /> <br />Judd Brasch and John Larson, RSP Architects, stated thcy had submitted some elevations for the <br />building, and it was their intent to select materials that would be compatible to the existing buildings <br />on the campus. <br /> <br />Councilrnember Grant asked if they were okay with the eight planning commission conditions. Mr. <br />Larson and Mr. Brasch replied they agreed to the conditions. <br /> <br />Bill Frankc, 1228 Wynridge Drive, stated in general he agreed with this development, but he was <br />concerned that there was no evidence to support the level of development associated with the <br />forthcoming Planned Unit Dcvelopment proposed was justified. He stated he was not opposed to <br />this specific development, but he was opposed to the process thus far. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jim Paulet, 1285 Wyncrest Court, stated he believed Guidant has been a good neighbor and they <br />wcre providing jobs to the community, but the neighbors had concerns regarding some aspccts of <br />the development plan. He stated they were concerned about the size of the buildings and the ramps, <br />as well as the scope of the projcct. He expressed concern about thc traffic issues. He stated they <br />also had drainage concerns. He stated he believed they should slow down some and the neighbors <br />should be involved with some of the planning. He stated it seemed that all the residents doing were <br />