pf_01864 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.. " - . Brutger companies, Inc., C3se No. 1864 Page 2 from the north property llne, where as the previous proposal was 35 feet. The second change is that instead of the building being 2 and 3 storles hlgh, the current structure is 3 st~ries in lts entlrety. This as allowed them to make the building smaller, therefore, increasing the setbacks to the west (from ~o feet to 112 feet). 5. Bp.cause addltional land is being added, the number of units has been increased from 61 to 72. The number of pgrking spaces under the building has also been increased from 61 to 82. A total of 144 parking spaces is required; 146 are propos~d. A larger park Lng ar~a under the buildlng is provided because the dwelling units are relatively large. In a typical apartment development wlth 3 stOtleS of resident1al units, there i~ adequate space for 1 parking space per unit. 6. The proposed struct\~e is to be entirely of brick, ~ith aluminum sidlng 1n areas involving the balconies. Thougn a perspective drawing has been submitted, as of this date we do not have exterior elevations of the structure indicating the exact use of these materials and, more importantly, the height of the building. 7. During of d1Scussions with the applicant regarding this ptoposal we talked about the height of the building as 1t relates to the previously approved plan and the resldentlal h01:lO sites to the north. The intent was to keep these heights the sane. Since the residential land to the north is high, we feel it is important that the roof on the new development be a pitched roof. Although this makes the roof higher, it provides a more attractive Vlew than the top of a typical flat roof. 8. We understand that the applicants hav~ had a meettng with the neighbors es requlred and that there were posltlve results. Cert~inly an importa~t element 15 the height of the structure, the setback from the residentlal lots to the north, and the use of the exterior materials. 9. Subject to the receipt of additional lnforrnation, it would appear that the propo~ed development constltutes an improvement over the previously approved plan. Density, parking, and other code r~quirements arc conformed to. The Fire Marshall notes that the building wlll have to be supplied with a sprinkler system since there is no vehlcular access to all sides of the bUllding. The engineers note that there are some concerns relating to formal approval of the handling of the drainage and grading as they relate to the MnDOT rlght-of-way to the south. 1n preVlOUS dlS~usslons wlth the applicant, lt would appear that these problems can be solved. ~