My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-08-25 PC Packet
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2025
>
01-08-25 PC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/2/2025 3:24:21 PM
Creation date
1/2/2025 3:23:55 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.
/
64
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 – December 4, 2024 9 <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Fink reported civil engineers have been in touch with Ramsey County to address right of <br />way, access, the intersection and permits. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund questioned why some of the trees within the landscaping plan were <br />being planted on the church property. <br /> <br />Mr. Fink explained he was required to plant more trees than would fit on the lot and for this <br />reason, he was proposing to put surplus plantings on the church lot. He indicated the church <br />supported the proposed placement for the plantings. <br /> <br />Chair Weber indicated another way to address the planting needs would be to plant larger trees <br />on the multi-family housing lot, instead of planting 2” trees on the subject property. <br /> <br />Mr. Fink commented he would like to further investigate what size caliper trees were being <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins addressed Attachment J and asked if the development intention has <br />changed since the traffic study was completed. He stated he was surprised by the low trip <br />generation from the proposed housing development. <br /> <br />Mr. Fink reported an age restricted housing development was proposed which led to the low trip <br />generation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell inquired if the residential dedication was tied to an expense for the City. <br /> <br />Consultant Planner Hofer stated the proposed fee was tied to utility improvements, such as <br />streets, roads, etc. He commented if a CUP or PUD is required, the dedication payment can be <br />determined as a result of the increased demand on park land or park improvements. He reported <br />this meant the City had to consider how this development will impact demand for the public <br />facilities in the community. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell discussed how part of affordable housing was to keep overall <br />construction costs down. She anticipated if the dedication fees were lower, this would assist with <br />providing more affordable housing units. She indicated this land has access to roads and parking. <br />She hoped because these expenses do not apply that the City could keep the residential <br />dedication lower in order to make the units more affordable. <br /> <br />Consultant Planner Hofer stated it was relevant to consider minimum needs for parks, trails <br />and wetlands for the subject development and what the City would be responsible for <br />maintaining long-term. <br /> <br />Chair Weber commented this also involves connection to and use of City utilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Fink indicated the tabling by the City Council for the rezoning occurred because the Council <br />was uncertain with how the project would move forward. He explained the City Council was <br />apprehensive about the number of units that would be included in this project and for that reason, <br />tabled the rezoning.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.