2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DRAFT MINUTES of THE MARCH 5,2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 e. PLANNING FILE 7 -0 Request ' y Aeon for approval of a PRELIMINARY PLAT and Ei E AL CONCEPT 61 PLANNED UNIT' DEVELOPMENT for the renovation and expansion of the H r Mar Apartments at 2225 — 2265 Snelling Avenue, Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File -068, 'City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed) the request of AEON for approval of REZONING + NiN and GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DE' ELOPMENT to complete site and existing building improvements to, the Her Mar Apartments, 21225 - 2265 Snelling Avenue., and to develop a new forty-eight ( ) unit,. four (4) story apartment Ibluilding in the northwest corner of the property. 13 Mr,. IPaschke provided staff's analysis of the Irequest and the project specifics, as detailed in the -1 Project Report dated March 5, 2008, noting: that the PRELIMINARY FLAT proposal for the project sought. to subdlivide the 3.06 acre parcel into two 2) lots" with Lot 1 including the five ) existing 116 apartment buildings and associated parking, and Lot 2 including the new apartment building and 17 associated (parking, in two 2 phases. Staff recommended APPROVAL f the request b AEON for REZONING NIN and GENERAL INIEPT PLANNED MIT E1ELtPMENT (based on comments and findings of sections 4, 5 and 61, and subject to conditions detailed in Section 7 of the Project Report dated March 5, 2008. 21 Mr,. Paschke (noted that one of the main isslues with the site was drainage, with existing conditions leading to water seepage into the. buildings /units due to poor grading directly adjacent to each building. Mr,. Paschke noted that the. applicant's proposal was to re�grade the site to eliminate the 4 drainage issues creating a positive grade adjacent to each building that allowed water to flow away from the building. 6 Mr. Paschke further noted that another item needing to be addressed was parking,, with current parking disbursed in an inefficient parking lot configuration, with this proposal placing parking- lots 8 and an alpplrolpriate number of stalls in locations more consistent with future /anticipated use. Mr. P'aschwke noted further refinement of emergency vehicle access was pending, but that staff supported the overall improvements} as condlitiloned, in the staff report 1 Discussion included current on -site parking for lexisting buuildings rationale for changing from the aM initial concept of multiple - bedroom units to the, current proposal for multi- bedroom units in only the new building when constructed- current code to provide two 2 parking spaces per unit through the PIt.UID requirements and built -in flexibilities depending on specific clientele and resident 5 demand or requiirements in the complex without '`over parking" the site; additional discussion at the staff (level with the applicant regarding calculations for parking excluding on- street parking accommodations* access and trash enclosure issues;. refinement and negotiations between 8 conceptual and final design approvals', and proposed interior renovations and energy efficiency (measures planned but. not specific to this PUD applli:catiion. Mr. Pasclhlke advised that, while the interior remodel was not part of the land use function for this PU. D application, the + ormrnissi'on include a condition on the new construction portion, with other conditions, addressed in city Code that wound be part of the Building Permit process sin meeting 43 that code. Chair IEakernan asked if staff had received any public comment prior to tonight's meeting. Mr. IPaschke apologized that the written. comments had not been included in the packet; but noted that one was opposed to the development due to. drainage concerns for adjoining properties, and, concern about the location of the proposed new structure, and four - stories versus three- stories. 48 Chair, I akemaln asked that staff include. those written) comments in the report going before the City Council.