CCP 03-31-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 3, 2002 8 want too add any more impervious parking surface than necessary. If parking was adequate to handle the facilities need, from staff's perspective proof of parking was acceptable. He indicated this is a generally accepted planning practice. He indicated that if parking became a problem on the property, the City would address this issue and Guidant would need to add additional parking at that time. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the setback variance was a necessity. He asked if it were denied, would this be a hardship. Mr. Larson stated Guidant had no intent of leaving the area any time soon, and he did not believe this setback would affect the property. Mr. Parrish stated it was anticipated Guidant might come forth for a preliminary plat at the next Planning Commission meeting. The City Council would make the ultimate determination regarding the vacation of easements and the street. Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if Fernwood Avenue would still be a public street. Mr. Larson replied it would still be a public street until vacated, at which time it would become a service drive. Commissioner Duchenes asked where the additional landscaping would be located. Mr. Larson pointed out where the landscaping would be placed. Commissioner Ricke stated this would still be less landscaping than what was required. Mr. Parrish replied that was correct, but there were a number of foundation plantings that did not show up on the caliper inch level, but these foundation plantings also added to the aesthetics of the property. He also indicated this facility had courtyards and other site amenities that are not taken into consideration with the current landscaping requirements. Chair Sand stated it appeared the landscaping they were proposing to add would be removed at a future time if the PUD were approved. Mr. Larson replied that was correct and Guidant was willing to do that. Mr. Parrish stated as the site developed, the landscaping would be continually evaluated and if landscaping were to be taken out around the training center, the City would reevaluate the landscaping at that time. Mr. Frank expressed concern about how the application and request for approval was framed. He stated it seemed to him that this was inappropriate and moved the project way beyond what should be happening at this stage. He indicated there were many studies that had not been completed yet and these studies were important to the overall development of the site. He stated vacating Fernwood Avenue to put in the skyway was not appropriate at this time. He stated the only purpose for vacating Fernwood Avenue at this time was to put into place the framework for Guidant's Master Plan. He stated the Commission's approval should be for a stand-alone facility at this time. Mr. Parrish stated the project could be stand alone. He explained that the condition of approval relative to this item takes into account both scenarios. He indicated that if Fernwood was not vacated, it would be necessary for Guidant to obtain an easement from the City to encroach on its right of way.