07-08-2020 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 3, 2020 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the purpose of the 15 foot maintenance easement was to allow for City crews to access the existing pond. Commissioner Vijums commented he has driven by this property several times and he noted it was an eyesore at this time. He explained the existing buildings needed to go away. He believed the new homes would improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He encouraged the applicant to keep the FAR requirements within the City’s guidelines. He recommended the developer find an additional 180 caliper inches of trees within this development. Commissioner Wicklund inquired if it was normal practice for staff to remove wetland area and right of way from calculating the density unit per acre. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this calculation can be done both ways. He discussed how the density unit per acre was calculated for this development noting the site did have a number of encumbrances, such as the wetlands and easement. Chair Gehrig opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chair Gehrig invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Kurt Weber asked if there were any other granted variances for reduced lot widths in the area. Chair Gehrig stated he would be happy to address questions, but noted this was a time for the public comment. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained he cannot think of any lots off the top of his head in the surrounding area that have a reduced lot width. Mr. Weber indicated if the City was going to calculate density by subtracting or discounting area of the property this should be done when the FAR was calculated as well. Dave Anderson, 1896 Gerald Avenue, explained he lived across the street from the old fire station property. He stated he had been to several of the public meetings and he wanted clarification on the variance request. He understood the requested variance was not based on economic consideration. He expressed concern that at one of the neighborhood meetings the applicant stated three house would not be economically feasible and therefore, four was necessary. He questioned why the neighbors had to bear the circumstances when the developer knew the size and expense of the lot when he purchased it. He suggested more creative thinking be put into this development in order to have three homes on the parcel, which would eliminate the need for a variance. He recommended the Commission not approve the variance request and that the project move forward with only three lots. There being no additional comment Chair Gehrig closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Jones thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments. He reported the economic stress of selling three homes versus four was different when considering the expense of tearing the building down. He anticipated the existing building could be added onto or remodeled in order