Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – MARCH 12, 2018 13 <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler commented the width of Lot 2 at the building pad area was only 66 feet, <br />which was less than the 85 foot requirement. He explained the 85-foot width requirement was <br />taken at the 40-foot setback from the front property line and at this location, the lot met the City’s <br />lot width requirement. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant stated he has walked every street in the City and he understood the City had a wide <br />variety of lot sizes and shapes. He commented this was caused by railroads, wetlands and <br />roadways. He indicated this Lot 2 was not so different than other lots in the City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden requested further information on the traffic concerns. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler reported the City can require a traffic study for any subdivision and in this <br />case a traffic impact study was not required due to the fact only two additional single family lots <br />were being created. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant commented there was a newer development with three lots on the other side of <br />Thom Drive that backed up to the railroad. He asked if a traffic study was completed for this <br />development. <br /> <br />City Planner Bachler stated he did not know if a traffic study was completed. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung questioned the width of Thom Drive and asked if this roadway was <br />marked for no parking. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka indicated Thom Drive was 26 or 28 feet in width <br />and noted the roadway was not marked for no parking. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden commented that Thom Drive was only 21 feet in some places. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung asked if a fire truck could drive down Thom Drive if a car were <br />parked on the street. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka explained staff could investigate this further. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott noted for the record one of the residents that lives in the newer <br />development on Thom Drive was dissatisfied with how his lot had been graded. This resident <br />envisioned the two new lots would be even more severe than his lot. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated she did not like the proposed subdivision because the lot were <br />laid out for maximum development. She commented that while this wasn’t against the law, it <br />wasn’t pleasing. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant indicated he wished fewer trees were being removed from the property. He was <br />pleased the developer had reduced the deficiency from 101 inches to 31 inches. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden explained that even though she did not like the proposed subdivision, <br />there was no reason for her not to support the request.