My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-15-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCP 10-15-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:17:28 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 4:06:20 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.
/
76
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 />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />were one-story ramblers. He stated they wanted more screening provided, <br />especially if the building was going to be larger. He indicated they wanted the <br />new building to blend in with the surrounding homes and to make sure there was <br />proper landscape screening for adjacent neighbors. He stated there would be very <br />little screening to the north. He indicated the proposed river birch trees provided <br />very little screening in the winter, they were slow growing, and a landscape design <br />engineer, or the Minnesota Horticultural Society did not recommend them. He <br />stated pyramidal arborvitae would provide screening and thrive in moist or wet <br />fertile soil. He noted they wanted the trash moved over to the other side to prevent <br />odors to the adjacent neighbors. He stated Mr. Nelson had not contacted any of <br />the neighbors for their input. He indicated the neighbors felt they had not been <br />told the whole story by the applicant with respect to the fence location and trees <br />not being able to grow along the north property lines. He expressed concern about <br />snow removal on the site. He stated Mr. Nelson had not met the requirements <br />made by the Planning Commission with respect to the landscaping. He stated they <br />needed to do what was right and not be caught up by the promises of a new <br />development. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Kim Luger, 2026 Glen Paul Avenue, expressed disappointment with the original <br />plans that were approved. She stated with the new proposal, there was no <br />buffering and therefore no privacy. She stated she strongly opposed this because <br />of the buffer zone going from 30 to 15 feet. She stated the proposed building <br />would be closer to her property line. She stated she needed more landscaping <br />along her property line. She expressed concern about the decks and balconies and <br />asked why they were needed. She requested no outside decks on the second story. <br />She stated she agreed with all of the concerns raised by Mr. McGuire. She <br />expressed concern about the location of the trash bins. She requested a ten-foot <br />fence, no outside decks, better screening, and relocation of the trash bins, which <br />would maintain the property value of her home. <br /> <br />Don Ristow, 2033 County Road D, expressed concern about his privacy, traffic <br />increase, and the location of the proposed parking ramp in relation to this home. <br />He expressed concern about the destruction of the existing trees. He expressed <br />concern about the decks on the building. He stated if this would remain a one- <br />story building, they would still be able to retain many of the trees and this would <br />. provide adequate screening. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.