Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I <br /> I . <br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 10. 1995 13 <br /> I <br /> Mayor Probst indicated surely ifthere had been greater awareness of the ownership of the land prior <br /> I to this proposal, the outcome may have been very different; but now the City is required to review <br /> this proposal. <br /> I 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 /> I Mayor Probst indicated he did not feel the approval or denial of this project would set a precedent. <br /> I 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 /> I 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 /> I development. <br /> I . Councilmember Malone felt the density was appropriate. He felt in reviewing the Comprehensive <br /> Plan, this proposed development is compatible with the Plan. <br /> I Councilmember Malone, in regard to the various maps, indicated the City would not have been able <br /> to identify any area as open space that they did not own. <br /> I 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 /> I Councilmember Hicks indicated if the two buildings were removed from the plan, the street could <br /> be widened to meet City standards. <br /> I 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 /> I 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 Councilmember Keirn concurred with the removal of units 7/8, but was not convinced of the <br /> necessity of the removal of the additional building. <br /> I Councilmember Aplikowski concurred with the locational problem of units 7/8, since it is located <br /> . directly adjacent to the sixty six foot easement. <br /> I <br /> I <br />