01-02-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, February 1, 1989 Page 2 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Bergly explained the division of the total property into six tracts is intended first, to create a separate parcel for the farmstead, to allow for separate financing of each of the apartment • buildings and to provide for park dedication. He noted cross-easements would be included for traffic, parking, utilities, drainage and use of open space. Planner Bergly stated as part of the PUD, preservation of the farmstead as a single-family residence establishes the use permanently; it cannot be resubdivided or used for any other high-density use unless the PUD is amended. He calculated the net site acreage at 7.68 acres, times 8.25 units per acre which equals 63.36 units. The applicant is proposing 64 units (four 16-unit buildings) . The Planner explained the Comprehensive Plan stipulates four specific items to be evaluated in the development review process; Conformance with Comprehensive Plan, Impact on Adjacent Property and Development, Impact on Community, and Quality of Development. Bergly advised the current land use plan designation for the subject site is Medium Density Residential with maximum density calculated at 4.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated the impact on adjacent property/development is of significance in this proposal only in respect to the quality of development and techniques used in relating to the adjacent public and private uses. Bergly explained the impact on the community is well protected by the building code, zoning code and PUD regulations. He explained the quality of development is an area where the community can exert influence over and above minimum zoning requirements; measures should be taken to minimize the impact of I-694 noise and maximize the off-site view from the site. • The Planner reviewed the miscellaneous requirements on page 5 of his report relating to the landscaping plan, bituminous walkways, platting requirements and the length of the buildings. He noted the zoning ordinance requires any type of residential structure adjacent to a freeway to obtain written approval from MNDOT of screening to reduce the noise level to or below 70 dba. He recommended buildings 3 and 4 should be buffered from I-694 with the use of earth berms and a landscaping screen. Bergly also noted the ordinance requires buildings over 150 feet in length to have special approval by the Village. Bergly concluded by stating the discussion on the PUD Concept Plan should cover the following and contain recommendations to the developer and Council relative to: density; zoning; subdivision; general arrangement of buildings, drives and parking; dedication of park land; and miscellaneous site plan elements. The Planner advised the Village has the ability to waive the platting requirements for a relatively straight forward division. He stated although six parcels will be created, none are intended as standard lots with traditional access, setbacks or lot area requirements. Commission discussed the rezoning of the property; Member Woodburn advised the PUD and rezoning requirements are different and traditionally the matters were accomplished separately. Member Martin questioned what requirements would be waived in the platting process. • The Planner advised it would basically accomplish platting by some other method, such as registered land survey. He noted two of the lots would not meet platting requirements due to the fact they have no access and front on I-694. Martin agreed a registered land survey would be favorable, however, he stated other methods may be cumbersome.