10-4-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Minutes, 10-4-89 Page 7 CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) 6. The grading plan is exactly as previously submitted. The Developer's Engineer has been discussing the plan with RCWD representatives. 16 7. The developer has submitted the Final Plat and explained the cross-easements for access and utilities will be submitted in written form in favor of adjoining lots, as those cannot be recorded on the final plat. The document will be submitted for review by the City Attorney prior to recording the plat. 8. The developer explained the market study he recently completed indicates the market desire for one and three bedroom apartments which generated the changes in the bedroom mix for the project. 9. The minor exterior building changes occurred due to the bedroom mix for the project. The developer explained the basic exterior look of the building will only change slightly. 10. The developer is proposing aluminum siding and brick exterior on the buildings and displayed the design features and materials. Commission questioned if the park dedication discussions by previously included public the dedication of the trailway. Bergly advised that the park dedication cash or land amount was not discussed with Commission except in terms of possible location should the dedication be land. He did not recall discussing the trailway dedication. The Planner commented he had viewed the trailway system for neighborhood use. Cook stated the trailway dedication was not discussed previously and he has contacted • Councilmember Mahowald regarding park dedication; Mahowald advised the discussion of park dedication will occur after Council review of the project. Commission questioned the distance of the pathway relative to the building patios. The Planner stated the closest distance from pathway to patios would be 20 ft. and the farthest approximately 35 ft. He indicated the land has a steep slope in the area of the path location which dictates the closeness to the building. Commission questioned if the landscape plan minimum level was set when the plan was previously reviewed. It was suggested the Planner review the plant materials to insure some visual buffer during the winter months. Bergly recalled the landscape plan being discussion and presented as being somewhat more substantial than the developer would propose with the final plan. Chairman Probst reiterated the concerns relative to the lighting fixtures. He preferred a public use of the pathway; stated the residents of the project will have no means of enforcing usage of the path. Probst indicated this is an opportunity to develop a trail system throughout the City. Cook suggested the lighting plan could be resubmitted after staff input is received. • The Chairman indicated it would be appropriate for the signage plan to return at a later date, however, the applicant should be advised that no variances for the signs will be considered by the Commission.