My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-08-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
03-08-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2021 9:26:17 AM
Creation date
3/5/2021 9:25:00 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.
/
121
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 – FEBRUARY 16, 2021 3 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes recommended the sheds be not wider than 12 feet when viewed from <br />the water. She stated the smaller the better for the accessory structures and noted she would <br />support the consensus of the Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reviewed the comments of the Council and noted he could support the accessory <br />structures within the OHWL being up to 100 square feet. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the next question staff had was <br />did the Council support increasing the roof height from eight feet to ten feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott indicated he could support ten feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden reported she would like the structure height to be eight feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung commented he could support a structure height of eight or nine feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated she would support an accessory structure height of eight feet. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant agreed with this recommendation. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla questioned if screening requirements <br />should be added to City Code for structures within the OHWL. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott stated supported the code requiring screening. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung agreed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes commented on the requirements from the city of Roseville. She <br />recommended the screening requirements for the City be further clarified. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden supported accessory structures having to match the principal structure. <br />In addition, she wanted to see organic screening required. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant supported screening being required from the lake side view. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden recommended doors on the accessory structure not face the lake as this <br />would be difficult to landscape around. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant commented this could be problematic, but screening could still be put in place if <br />setback around the structure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden noted Roseville requires these structures to have 50% of the lakeside <br />view screened with opaque screening. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained opaque screening would <br />include arborvitae, ornamental grasses, dogwood trees, lilacs, or other conifers. He noted a trellis <br />with a climbing vine could also be used.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.