Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Meeting Minutes - TCAAP City CouncilPlanning Commission Worksession <br /> <br />Open Space <br /> <br />I. A few members expressed a dislike of view corridors, feeling they don't work. <br />2. Several members preferred the open space configuration in Concept A. <br />3. A couple members liked the village green connection with access to the Rice Creek <br />Corridor as shown in Concept C. <br />4. One member did not like the connection to Rice Creek Corridor as expressed in Concept <br />C. <br />5. A couple of members preferred the open space represented in Concept A, but without the <br />ponds located in the center part of the park space. <br />6. A few members expressed a desire for neighborhood parks, citing that is what exists in <br />Arden Hills today. <br />7. Another member expressed a desire for a variety of park spaces from neighborhood parks <br />to large natural open spaces. <br />8. One member expressed a dislike for rectangular parks. <br />9. There was a desire for a comprehensive trail system that would connect open spaces. <br />Parks and corridors. <br />10. There was a goal established in the Vento Plan to include a 25 ac. contiguous park. One <br />member thought the athletic fields may achieve this goal. <br />II. There should be courtyard spaces included within the residential areas. <br />12. Can the ponds go onto the National Guard property? This may be difficult due to grade <br />conditions. <br />13. Include mileage of trails on the trails maps. <br /> <br /> <br />Land Use <br /> <br />1. Retail on Hwy 96 is desired but it must be inviting. <br />2. Can a park and ride lot be provided in the development? <br />3. It was pointed out that one exists at the interchange ofCty Rd Hand 1-35. <br />4. One member expressed a preference for the land use configuration on Concept A. <br />5. Another preferred Concept B. <br />6. One member expressed a desire for a mix of uses along Hwy 96, like Concept B. <br />7. Preference for the higher density housing in the north area - Concept A. <br />8. One member didn't like the lifestyle center shown in Concept B. <br />9. Another member preferred the lifestyle center concept, feeling it was more adaptable to <br />future change and it provides an amenity for the community. <br />10. One member expressed a desire for more residential, less commercial. <br />II. Preference for owner occupied units vs. rental units. <br /> <br /> <br />ent Planning Work Session Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. <br /> <br />ili~~t/~<<~ <br /> <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />5 <br />