Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JUNE 22, 2020 11 <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned if Public Works believed there was enough room to access <br />the storm pond. <br /> <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom reported at a minimum Public Works needs <br />10 feet to access the rear property and this area would have to remain clear of vegetation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden inquired who got to decide what type of trees were replanted within this <br />development. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the City requires a mixture or <br />variety of trees. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes asked if the proposed retention pond was a requirement of Rice Creek <br />Watershed. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this was a Rice Creek <br />Watershed requirement. Further discussion ensued regarding how water would drain from the <br />proposed development. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung stated he was having a hard time deciphering what the unique <br />circumstances were with this property. He commented his other concern was that economic <br />consideration should not constitute a practical difficulty. He explained that three lots would also <br />work for this development, versus four. He indicated he did not see how the City could <br />legitimately grant a variance for this request. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden agreed with Councilmember McClung. She stated she had additional <br />conditions for approval if this item were to proceed towards approval. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reported if three lots were pursued the lots would be 108 feet wide, which was not <br />in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung reminded the Council that they had to consider the proposal per City <br />Code today and not what City Code used to be. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott stated he originally opposed this development, when proposed by a <br />different developer. He commented given the fact several neighborhood meetings have been held <br />and the neighbors want the blight removed he was in favor of granting the variance. He explained <br />he was taking into consideration how the development would change the neighborhood and <br />indicated this was an older neighborhood that had 80 foot lots. He supported the developer <br />building homes on similar sized lots, versus 100+ foot wide lots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden reported she has heard from a lot of the neighbors as well and she <br />understood they wanted the blight removed. She explained the neighbors do not understand why <br />this site has moved from a group home to now four residential lots. She indicated the variance <br />requirements were not being met in her mind. <br />