My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-17-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
08-21-17-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2017 10:46:26 AM
Creation date
9/27/2017 10:46:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — AUGUST 21, 2017 3 <br />Mayor Grant questioned existing zoning and how many units are allowed. <br />Senior Planner Bachler responded that current zoning, R-1, allows for a density of up to three <br />units per acre. He clarified that the Comprehensive Plan guides the property for medium density <br />of six to nine units per acre. So, based on current zoning, the property could support <br />approximately 15 units, based on the Comprehensive Plan it would be approximately 47. <br />Mayor Grant felt bringing the density down and providing more green space would be a positive. <br />He asked for more information about the proposed retaining wall between the property and the <br />Winiecki property. <br />Mr. Heuer responded that they only build boulder walls. The wall could be up to 10 feet tall. <br />Mr. Rausch explained that the wall would be seen from the townhome side, with a berm effect <br />for the Winiecki's. <br />Councilmember Steve Scott stated his primary concern is impervious surface coverage and water <br />quality. <br />Mr. Rausch said they had a good meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District the previous <br />week and they were happy to hear about the plans to reuse the storm water. <br />Councilmember Holden asked for staff's opinion about putting a holding pond on City property. <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Sue Polka said it would be a policy issue. If the Council <br />wanted the pond on City property there would have to be maintenance agreements put in place. <br />The roadway location would need to be looked at also. <br />Councilmember Dave McClung was concerned about the precedence set by using use of City <br />land for their pond. He would consider it only if it were a major win for the City. He felt the plan <br />was too dense compared to other townhome developments in the City. He also felt there should <br />not be a pond off of Old Hwy 10 in the Ramsey County right-of-way and that it should be on site. <br />He was concerned about the number of deviations required from our ordinances and stated that he <br />couldn't support the proposal as it stands. <br />Mayor Grant discussed how much additional traffic the units would generate and felt the City <br />should look at the transportation impacts. <br />Councilmember Holden would like to see sidewalks added to the proposal. She stated the <br />proposed plan is too dense and she doesn't want the water on City property. <br />Councilmember Holmes would like to see if staff could find out more about the park dedication <br />fee as the City green space isn't being used and possibly the builder could buy the property from <br />the City and use it as part of the green space in the development. <br />Mr. Rausch stated they would be willing to commit to a tot -lot type amenity on the City property <br />if the City lowered the park dedication fees. They would also consider building a city sidewalk to <br />the park. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.