03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MARCH 12, 2018 12 between the cases. He noted that Planning Case 06-038 was approved and Planning Case 06-05 was denied. Mayor Grant commented there was no variance request for this Planning Case. He understood staff believed the Lift Station could be maintained with a reduced easement and that the City would be have the authority, within a developer's agreement, to enforce maintenance of the catch basins. He questioned what grounds the City had to deny the request. City Attorney Jamnik stated this was for the City Council to determine based on Findings of Fact. He reported the Council had limited discretion to go outside of the criteria within City Ordinance. He advised it would be very difficult to create findings for denial. Councilmember Holden asked if the house on Lot 2 was wider than 50 feet. City Planner Bachler explained the site plan was simply showing the location of the building pad, which was 50 feet wide and 60 feet deep. He anticipated the home plans for this lot would differ from the proposed building pad but would be required to meet setback requirements. Mayor Grant questioned if a potential buyer could ask for a variance to the proposed setbacks in order to construct a house that was wider than 50 feet. City Planner Bachler stated a variance request could be submitted by the future property owner of Lot 2 if their house plans were for a house wider than 50 feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the building pad for Lot 2. Councilmember Holden addressed the comments and concerns raised by the public at the Planning Commission meeting. She asked if the wetland protection requirements were being met for this plat. City Attorney Jamnik reported all wetland protection requirements had been met. Councilmember Holden requested further comment from the City Attorney regarding the proposed tree removal. City Attorney Jamnik stated he concurred with staff and explained on an area such as the building pad all trees would have to be removed. Councilmember Holden explained that in this neighborhood the houses are generally, much further apart. She questioned if the R-2 zoning requirements should override the character of the neighborhood. City Attorney Jamnik stated this was the case. In his opinion, a property owner's rights were determined by the zoning of their property. Councilmember Scott indicated he had a problem with the site plan. He believed that while Lot 2 technically met the intent of the law it did not meet the spirit of the law. He reported the majority of this lot was only 66 feet in width.