Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> "~1"Tm;1V'I n-wnn;!Clsion Meetinc:r 3 4-07-93 <br /> Cl\SE #93-01; (oontimIed) <br /> . 6. As the =iginal POD approval was f= an overall density that is <br /> well within the existirg ordinance regulations, the increased <br /> density provided by the new R-3 District is irrelevant. All <br /> requirements of both the existirg ani proposed ordinances have <br /> been met, so waiver of the JOOratoril.Dll to allow the City to act on <br /> this Application is aw.<~date. <br /> Planner Bergly reccmrnerxied the followirg actions: <br /> 1. Waive the Develcpnent Moratoril.Dll, rationale beirg the proposed POD <br /> Amerx:lment meets all requirements of both the existirg ani proposed <br /> ordinances . <br /> 2. Rezone the 100' x 150' site from the R-l District to the R-3 <br /> District, rationale beirg the proposed development is consistent <br /> with the Arden Hills Ccmprehensive Plan; it is an expansion of a <br /> previously developed R-3 District; ani it was not previously <br /> included in the R-3 District because it was City owned property <br /> use:l f= a lift station. <br /> 3. Approve the amended POD General Development Plan, rationale beirg <br /> the Plan is consistent with the concept Plan approved in February, <br /> 1993 ani incorporates changes rec:amnelXied in that approval; the <br /> Plan is an expansion of an existirg POD; ani the amen:lment to an <br /> existirg POD, meets all Ordinance requirements. <br /> . '!he Planner suggested a provision should be included in the POD Permit <br /> that clearly defines the Homeowners' Association's responsibility for <br /> maintaining or replacirg 1arxiscapirg in drainage ani utility easements <br /> if the City is required to perform utility maintenance work within the <br /> easement that results in damage to trees ani shrubs ani request the <br /> Association to incorporate these requirements into their By-laws. <br /> Erickson questioned if the city Engineer has reviewed this ~~ POD <br /> as he does not see any report = documentation in the packet from the <br /> Engineer . Bergly explained that the Planner, Engineer, Attorney ani <br /> staff will meet monthly to review all issues beirg presented to the <br /> Planning Commission. '!hey will then incorporate all reports into one <br /> report thus eliminatirg various reports to the Commission, various <br /> opinions ani various handouts being presented. Bergly stated the <br /> Engineer had no concerns. <br /> Erickson questioned the responsibility of maintaining the trail ani if <br /> maintaining the trail was necessary. Bergly stated the trail will need <br /> to be maintained to allow the U.S. Fish & wild Life Department access. ' <br /> Mdiraw questioned who owned the property behind the trail area. It is <br /> owned by the U. S. Fish & wild Life Department. <br /> Rye questioned the Flood Elevation. Bergly stated it is in conformance. <br /> . Rye questioned what type of Erosion COntrol is beirg used especially on <br /> lDt 3 after the lift station is rerrmred. Bergly explained there is a <br /> silt fence installed below the construction line. '!he Developer, Paul <br /> Keleher mentioned the excess material on the west side of the property <br /> is beirg removed. Rye would like to suggest that the buil~ official <br />