Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe stated a tree preservation plan would have to be <br />submitted by the applicant, along with a grading plan for the building permit. She explained Mr. <br />Ali had attended a Council Worksession meeting and based on the feedback made by the City <br />Council, adjustments had been made to the plan. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums opened the meeting for public comments. <br /> <br />Steven Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated the City was establishing a precedent by dumbing <br />down the requirements for this lot in an attempt to raise funds. He noted the applicant was aware <br />of the setback and lot size requirements, as well as the access requirement from Ridgewood <br />Road. He encouraged the Commission to consider the precedent that would be set if this variance <br />were approved, especially given the fact the applicant knew the rules prior to purchasing the lot. <br /> <br />Matthew Dreon, 3586 Ridgewood Road, stated he lived two houses to the north from the <br />subject property. He believed the City made a mistake by selling this lot, when it was not <br />buildable. He feared the City put this family in a tough spot because a house would not fit on this <br />lot. He reported 25% of the proposed home would not fit on this lot. He stated he was not anti- <br />development, but he anticipated a dangerous precedent would be set if the City were to approve <br />the requested variances. He indicated this lot was not designed for a 2,300 square foot foundation <br />home and recommended the Commission deny the requested variance. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums closed the meeting for public comments. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums commented when this property went for sale he reluctantly approved the sale, but <br />he did so with the understanding the lot would require a variance for lot size. He stated the <br />buyers purchased the lot with the understanding the lot was non-conforming. He indicated he <br />would not be supporting the requested variances, because the requests were well beyond what the <br />City would typically see. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund explained this was an incredibly complex situation. He believed the <br />City should take some responsibility for the complexity of the situation, which was unfortunate. <br />He stated his preference would be to find a workable solution. He suggested a structure be <br />pursued that was put into the buildable area red triangle that was modern and required only five <br />extra feet versus the requests that were currently before the Commission. He indicated he would <br />not be able to support the variances as requested from the applicant. <br /> <br />Commissioner Jefferys stated the variance request process was arbitrary and the applicant knew <br />variances had been approved by the City in the past. However, the applicant may have been <br />taking too big of a risk when purchasing this property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins agreed the variance issue was complicated. He indicated the applicant <br />was requesting a standard house that fit the character of the neighborhood. He noted the setbacks <br />were to the property line and do not infringe on the neighbors, but rather infringe on the <br />roadways. He believed the applicant had significant right-of-way from the house to the streets. <br />He reported the driveway requirement was a safety issue for him because the City did not <br />complete a survey on the property to see if a driveway could even be accessed from Ridgewood <br />Road. He noted the property to the north accesses Snelling Avenue and for this reason he could