Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 3 <br /> <br />Mr. Kohout said they are putting 75 units on three acres in other cities. He felt the smallest <br />number of units they would want to have would be 110-120. He stated that he has spoken with <br />the homeowner whose property is next to the site and he is open to this use. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant said the density is a concern for him. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung was interested to hear what building materials would be used. <br /> <br />Mr. Kohout said they would be hard plank exteriors with multiple colors, lots of stone and brick, <br />with arches and gables. Upon entering the facility there is a two story entry with a fireplace, <br />library, exercise facility, and café area so it would not be repurposed as an apartment in the future. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung was concerned about density and wanted to make sure that the <br />neighbors were supportive. <br /> <br />Mr. Kohout said they would plan a community meeting with the neighbors in the area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated that she could see a PUD on this project and going up to 110 <br />units. She would like them to add the trail as part of the PUD. <br /> <br />Councilmember Steve Scott felt there is a need for more senior focused housing in the city, so he <br />would say yes to this proposal if it can mesh with the density requirements and agreement from <br />the neighbors. <br /> <br />Councilmember Fran Holmes said this might be less of an impact to the area than other projects <br />that have been proposed. She was concerned about density but would be supportive of a higher <br />number of units. She also commented that there would be little addition to rush hour traffic with a <br />senior development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kohout will do more renderings, meet with neighbors and come back to give another <br />presentation. <br /> <br />E. B-2 District Design Standards <br /> <br />Interim City Planner Kansier noted that the Council wanted to look at setback requirements for <br />buildings and parking lots in the B-2 District, generally located along County Road E between <br />Highway 51 and Lexington Avenue. Any changes made to the B-2 District would also apply to the <br />B-3 District. Currently the building need to be close to the street with the parking behind the <br />buildings. This has presented some issues with snow removal and trails/sidewalks along the road. <br />Staff was requested to bring forth some design changes that might allow for more flexibility in <br />building and parking placement and façade requirements which currently require at least 50% of <br />the first level building façade be transparent. <br /> <br />Staff suggested the building setback be increased from 20 feet to 50 feet, and the parking <br />restriction where parking cannot be located between the street and front of the building be <br />removed. Staff also suggested the 50% transparency remain on the first level facade that fronts a <br />public street but the 20% transparency be removed for all facades. Window treatments <br />requirements could be managed by the building code.