My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 10-10-1995
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
CC 10-10-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:41 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:13:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
<br /> . <br /> .. ,ARDEN IllLLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 10.1995 13 <br /> , <br /> . <br /> Mayor Probst inquired about the 300 foot Shoreland setback requirement. Mr. Ringwald indicated <br /> . the area is still not designated as a Shoreland District by the Department of Natural Resources. <br /> Also, he pointed out each City has its own allowed setbacks, that are approved by the Department <br /> . of Natural Resources. Arden Hills has established a 150 foot setback requirement and this <br /> development would meet that requirement, even from Valentine Creek. <br /> I Mayor Probst indicated surely if there had been greater awareness of the ownership of the land prior <br /> to this proposal, the outcome may have been very different; but now the City is required to review <br /> this proposal. <br /> . Mayor Probst indicated it is his understanding that the proposed development, although referred to <br /> as townhomes, in actuality are Attached Single Family homes. <br /> . Mayor Probst indicated he did not feel the approval or denial of this project would set a precedent. <br /> . Mayor Probst indicated the issue of compatibility as it relates to density is not resolved in his mind, <br /> he would like to see units 7/8 and units 13/14 removed from the Plan. He felt this would aid in <br /> .- addressing density and screening issues and reducing impact of the site. <br /> Councilmember Malone indicated the Council has spent six months reviewing this project He noted <br /> . development will occur and felt with the PUD, the City has more control over the outcome of the <br /> development. <br /> . Councilmember Malone felt the density was appropriate. He felt in reviewing the Comprehensive <br /> Plan, this proposed development is compatible with the Plan. <br /> . Councilmember Malone, in regard to the various maps, indicated the City would not have been able <br /> to designate any area that they did not own as open space. <br /> . Councilmember Malone felt a lot of work and consideration had gone into this proposed <br /> development and he felt comfortable with it as proposed. <br /> . Councilmember Hicks indicated if the two buildings were removed from the plan, the street could <br /> be widened to meet City standards. <br /> . Mayor Probst indicated he still felt that Attached Single Family is a better option than Detached <br /> Single Family homes, in that additional open space could be preserved with a PUD. If the property <br /> . was built as Detached Single Family, that 10-14 Single Family houses could be built on this <br /> property. The PUD allows the City the ability to allow a certain number of units, but yet preserve <br /> .- the integrity of the open space. <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.