My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-22-2020-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
06-22-2020-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2024 12:30:25 AM
Creation date
6/22/2020 10:57:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
251
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—June 3, 2020 5 <br /> would subdivide the parcel into four lots. He commented further on the setbacks and buildable <br /> area for each lot. <br /> Commissioner Jones inquired what the maximum height was for a house. <br /> Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the maximum height for a <br /> home was 35 feet from grade. <br /> Commissioner Jones commented he was not a fan of this project noting he believed three should <br /> be the maximum number of homes allowed. He questioned why a pond was being built when <br /> there was an existing pond in place. <br /> Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the proposed pond was <br /> under review by the watershed district and would be used to pre e the quality of the existing <br /> pond. <br /> Commissioner Lambeth discussed the proposed lots an ted t sizes. He commented there <br /> should be no foreseeable FAR concerns with the lots future ho He explained the only <br /> issue left for the Commission to consider was to dth. asked at objections would be <br /> legitimate for denying this project. <br /> Commissioner Subramanian requested orma regarding the trees that would be <br /> lost on the parcel. He questioned how man ree e preserved. He inquired what the <br /> reasons were for requesting smaller es, o an economic reasons. <br /> Community Development ager/Ci la r Mrosla reviewed a diagram where trees <br /> would be planted onsite noting perd 1920 caliper inches of significant trees. He <br /> explained only 14 of ig ant trees onsite would be removed. It was noted an <br /> additional 20 trees woul be pl d. iscussed how the site and trees would be impacted if <br /> the development was reduced to t e lots. <br /> lq&�, <br /> Chair Gehrig reported this requ t did not require a Tree Preservation Variance. <br /> Commissioner Subramanian stated other than economic consideration, was there any other <br /> reason for this Variance. <br /> Brendan O'Meara, representative for the applicant, thanked the Commission for their time. He <br /> discussed the tree preservation efforts and stated it would be impossible to understand how this <br /> property would be impacted if only three lots were pursued. He anticipated if only three lots <br /> were approved the homes would be much larger. He explained the variance request would allow <br /> this development to keep in character with the surrounding neighborhood. He reported if only <br /> three lots were pursued, these lots would be larger than any in the neighborhood and would have <br /> much bigger homes. He stated his purpose would be to construct four homes that more closely <br /> matched the neighborhood. <br /> Commissioner Vijums asked if there was any way to adjust the width of the maintenance <br /> easement. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.