04-05-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 4-5-89 Page 3 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) Chuck Cook, Continental Development, discussed three items relative to the proposal: • 1. The landscape plan submitted is above the minimum requirements specified by Ordinance and is in excess of the funds budgeted for the development; the architect has drafted a plan which eliminates 25 to 30% of the plantings and maintains ordinance requirements. Cook stated he believes the revised plan addresses the concerns expressed by the city in earlier discussions. 2. The roadway requirements suggested by the Fire Chief appear to be excessive; he recommended further review by the Commission. 3. The mix of apartment units may be subject to change after a market study has been completed; Cook preferred this item remain flexible rather than fixed at 32 one-bedroom units and 32 two-bedroom units. The architect for the project displayed the floor plan proposed for the buildings and described the "split entry" feature of the buildings; the front of the building has two floors and the rear of the building is three units high. He explained the wood frame construction; fire rated for center walls, unit separating walls, and the wall that forms the corridor connecting the two entrances. He noted the areas of brick on the exterior of the two buildings on the north of the site and the areas at the end of each building dormer; the rest of the building will be siding. The two buildings on the south end of the site will not have any brick on the exterior. The architect advised the mix of units will have minor impact on the exterior image of the buildings. • Member Martin questioned if the cross-easements for access would be provided as recommended in the Planner's report. Cook advised the easements would be included in the plat. Martin questioned if fire proof materials would be utilized for the porch overhang. The architect explained the buildings would meet all standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code. Martin commented on the decreased landscaping on the north side of Building #2; he questioned if there should be a buffer in this area to provide screening for the project from the adjacent park. The architect explained the decreased landscaping was to provide residents a "long" view of the lake from the balconies of the units. Member Woodburn questioned the length of the buildings and the height of the buildings with the walk-out units. The architect advised the buildings are 188 ft. long and 35 ft. in height. There was discussion relative to the inclusion of the farmstead in the density calculations; Chairman Probst advised the farmstead will remain as part of the IsPUD and this will not change without City approval of an amendment to the PUD. Probst advised the developer was given very clear direction that the Commission would not favor a development with a higher density than 10 units per acre. Member Winiecki questioned if the building footprint would change if the mix of units is changed.