CC 02-13-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mlnutes ot the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, February 13, 1989 Page 2 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) The concept of the development is to orient the buildings outward from the site to obtain the most advantageous site views for future residents. ~ Bergly noted a stormwater drainage area has been designated on the site, although it is not necessary at this stage of application. The Planner stated the proposal is to divide the tract into six lots; four lots for the four apartment buildings, one lot for the existing farmstead and one lot for the park land dedication. . Bergly reviewed the miscellaneous requirements outlined in his report: 1. Freeway noise abatement required by MNDOT. 2. Pathway system around the complex; suggested by staff. 3. Special Council approval of the extended building lengths; per Subdivision Regulations. This can be accomplished as a separate action. 4. Landscaping recommendations. The Planner stated the Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan; contingencies attached by Planning Commission, which are noted in the Planning minutes, relate to submission of a parking plan identifying additional parking area if deemed necessary and completion of a traffic study, prior to submission of a General Development Plan, to determine impact on Highway 10 which includes the intersection of Highways 10 and 96. Bergly advised Gerald McGuire and Kim Tramm, developers of the projects north of the site, had contacted the developer of this site to discuss how this . development could be made to "mesh" with the northern projects. The three developers agreed there should be entire brick faces on the portions of the proposed buildings which face the townhouse and apartment project on the north. The Planner advised Council could impose those types of contingencies for the applicant to consider prior to submission of plans for the General Development of this site. Councilmember Hansen questioned if consideration should be given to reducing the size of the park dedication or accepting cash in lieu of land to allow the applicant to provide more space between the proposed buildings on the site. She asked what staff is proposing for development of this park; active park area or quiet space. Hansen noted if park was proposed for active use such as ballfields, traffic and parking may become a problem. Councilmember Malone questioned if the developer had any objections to the Planner's recommendations for additional restrictions and asked Cook to address the park dedication discussion. Bergly advised the landscaping and screening requirements are included in the Ordinance and the developer has generally agreed to the bituminous pathway concept. . Mayor Sather noted that Statutes prohibit the Village from requesting more than 10% park dedication, either in land or cash; he advised 15% has been offered and the dedication may be negotiated. Chuck Cook, developer, was present along with his architect for the project. Cook stated he has worked extensively with the Winiecki family, to maintain the farmstead at the site and the developers McGuire and Tramm, relative to site plan arrangement. Cook stated he had met with Park Director Buckley relative to the park dedication; he was advised the PUD Ordinance provides for park dedication of 12 to 15% of the land area. He stated Buckley requested land in the maximum amount for park dedication. The developer advised the site was difficult to develop due to the steep slopes which prohibit the distance between the proposed buildings; he stated there was limited flexibility on the site to arrange the buildings. Cook stated he would prefer a quiet area park with less intensive use in order to remain consistent with the area. .