My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-03-20 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2020
>
06-03-20 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2020 4:59:56 PM
Creation date
7/29/2020 4:59:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 /> <br />would subdivide the parcel into four lots. He commented further on the setbacks and buildable <br />area for each lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jones inquired what the maximum height was for a house. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the maximum height for a <br />home was 35 feet from grade. <br /> <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 /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the proposed pond was <br />under review by the watershed district and would be used to preserve the quality of the existing <br />pond. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lambeth discussed the proposed lots and noted their sizes. He commented there <br />should be no foreseeable FAR concerns with the lots and future homes. He explained the only <br />issue left for the Commission to consider was lot width. He asked what objections would be <br />legitimate for denying this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Subramanian requested further information regarding the trees that would be <br />lost on the parcel. He questioned how many trees would be preserved. He inquired what the <br />reasons were for requesting smaller lot sizes, other than economic reasons. <br /> <br />Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed a diagram where trees <br />would be planted onsite noting the property had 1920 caliper inches of significant trees. He <br />explained only 14 of the 150 significant trees onsite would be removed. It was noted an <br />additional 20 trees would be planted. He discussed how the site and trees would be impacted if <br />the development was reduced to three lots. <br /> <br />Chair Gehrig reported this request did not require a Tree Preservation Variance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Subramanian stated other than economic consideration, was there any other <br />reason for this Variance. <br /> <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 /> <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.