Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 1,2002 2 <br /> . Commissioner Zimmern1an asked ifthe lot to the south was a conforming lot and the <br /> width of that lot. Mr. Parrish replied the lot was conforming and the width was 95 feet. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman stated when tbey had looked at a subdivision proposal a <br /> couple of months ago there was a concern with the road having sufficient access for <br /> emergency vehicles. Mr. Parrish replied project had been reviewed by the Fire <br /> Department and they had no concerns regarding thc access. <br /> Scott Tolson, stated he opposed this proposal because it put the road right along his back <br /> lot line, He exprcssed eoncem that that was already a low-lying area and had drainage <br /> issues. He also expressed concern about the snow and debris that would get swcpt off of <br /> the road, and the excess getting swept into his yard. He stated when they purchased their <br /> lot, it was with the understanding that there was a nursery and Christmas tree sales on <br /> that lot, but he was disappointed that there was now going to be a road. He expressed <br /> concern about his value and enjoyment of his property, <br /> Joanne Pastorius, opposed this proposal due to safety issues and having an access onto <br /> Hamline Avenue. She indicated there was no natural frontage to this home. She stated <br /> this home would be looking into thcir back yards. She expressed concern about drainage <br /> also. <br /> Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:50 p,m. <br /> , Chair Sand asked what the rcquirements were with respect to sctback for a driveway for a <br /> lot. Mr. Parrish replied they were actually able to go to the property line with a driveway, <br /> Chair Sand asked if the elevations proposed for constructing the driveway would raise the <br /> existing elevations, or would they be kept or lowered. The City Engineer, Nick Landwer, <br /> replied they would review any drainage plans before approval. <br /> Chair Sand asked if the City Engineer had been out to the site. Mr. Landwer replied he <br /> had not. <br /> Chair Sand indicated this was apparently a lower area that remained wet. He requested <br /> allY review take into account any potential runoff and exacerbation of any drainage <br /> problems, He asked if any drainage problem was made worse, would this be a rejection <br /> of the request. Mr. Parrish replied if there was a potential for drainage issues, a building <br /> pem1it would not be issned. <br /> Commissioner Zimmennan asked what was required for access for a lot such as this. Mr. <br /> Parrish replied the requirement was strcet frontage to have access to a public street. In <br /> this instance, there was only a small access to a public street for the strip ofland going <br /> back to the property. He stated the standard street requirement was 50-60 feet. He <br /> indicated this request wanted a private access variance to allow access to Parcel B. He <br /> stated this was not done with great regularity within the community; typically this was <br /> . done arOlllld the lakes. He noted this was not standard, but it was not unusual either. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the purpose of this was to guarantee the lot to the <br /> south would not be made unbuildable. Mr. Panish replied that was a part of the <br /> intention. <br /> ---.- <br />