CC 07-31-1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I Ie I ,ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 31,J 995 8 Mr. Ringwald noted in September of 1993, tl1e Applicant submitted a six lot PUD Concept Plan review to the City Staff. The staff recommendation was to reduce the number oflots to three or four and to use tl1e required 60 foot radius cul-de-sac. Mr. Ringwald indicated tl1e Applicant then in September of 1994 again submitted a six lot PUD for staff review, and staff recommended reducing tl1e number to five or preferably four. Mr. Ringwald noted in November of 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a six lot PUD witl1 virtually tl1e same reaction as noted in September, 1993 and 1994 staff memos. Mr. Ringwald indicated tl1e staff recommended tl1e Planning Commission table tl1e application, giving tl1e Applicant specific direction on acceptable development parameters. Mr. Ringwald reported the Planning Commission considered a motion to table tl1e request and give specific direction on acceptable development parameters. However, tl1e petitioner requested that the Planning Commission take action on their request. Therefore, tl1e Planning Commission took action on tl1eir request. Mr. Ringwald reported tl1e Planning Commission recommended denial of Planning Case 95-16, Balfany Preliminary Plat. The recommendation to deny tl1e Preliminllry Plat was based on: A. Plat requires a variance to the cul-de-sac diameter. S. Lot 1 does not meet the rear yard setback requirements; and C. All portions of Lot 25, Block 3, Rohlder's Home and Garden Acres have not been included in tl1e plat. Mr. Ringwald indicated tl1e primary concern is tl1e radius of tl1e cul-de-sac. Mr. Ringwald informed the City Council they could approve tl1e request, send tl1e application back to the Planning Commission or deny tl1e application. Mr. Ringwald noted there would be five new lots with one existing lot. Mr. Ringwald indicated tl1e primary reason for denial was staffbelieved tl1ere were options available for a design that would be code consistent and still establish tl1e goals desired by tl1e developer to save trees and eliminate ejector sewer systems. Mr. Ringwald indicated tl1e Applicant did not make a compelling argument for tl1e tree in the island of tl1e cul-de-sac and tl1e smaller radius.