PCP 03-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1,2006 5 Commissioner Larson inquired about the mature trees on the west side of the parcel. He . asked what bearing did that have on where the property line was. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the reason they wanted to protect the trees was because if the variance was not approved, the structure would need to be moved to the west by at least six feet, which would require the removal of the mature trees, Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the property would need to be moved back 8 feet to meet the front-yard setback. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it would need to be moved back 8 feet if the variance was not approved but the minor subdivision was approved. Chair Sand asked if the house were to be moved to the west in order to alleviate the variance issue, would it impact the rear yard set back. Mr. Lehnhoff responded it would not. He noted if the structure was moved, there would no reason to ask for a variance. Commissioner Modesette asked how the 21-foot drainage and utility easement would be a needed requirement to keep the proper separation between the properties. Mr. Lehnhoff noted condition 2 would need to be modified to 12 feet and not 21 feet ifthe variance was not approved but the minor subdivision was approved. Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Chair Sand invited anyone for or against the request to come forward and make comment. . Letter received dated January 28,2006 from Mike and Karen Stephens, 3484 Glenarden Road: "This is in regard to the request for a variance on the above referenced property. In the year after we moved to the above address, we requested a variance of 4' bordering on a road that would never be extended or widened - a dead end with Snelling Avenue on the east. It was not approved, nor was a subsequent request for a small variance on another part of our property. Although not pleased, we certainly understood the reason for adherence to a non-variance policy. The zoning policies were part of the reason for our moving to Arden Hills. To that end, we are against the requested variance at 1501 (sic) Skiles. Tearing down the present building and erecting two homes properly is one possibility, but there is no way that an additional home on the property - as it presently exists - would be appropriate." Charlie Kinkead, 1385 Skiles, stated he was concerned about the trees in the neighborhood. He noted they lost a lot of mature trees from last year's September storms. He stated he believed they would need to take down a minimum of five trees to build a structure on the empty lot, and not two trees as indicated. He stated if they also had to move the structure to the west and back 8 feet, more mature oak trees would be lost. He asked if the applicant was going to live in one of these two homes, or would both homes be sold. He noted if applicant was not going to Jive in the neighborhood, he would not care how the neighborhood would look. He expressed concern about a story and a half house and noted the character of the neighborhood was rambler homes. He . stated the neighborhood could not afford to lose more trees and this was his main concern. Mr. Lehnhoff stated in the ordinance there was not a specific reference to protection oftrecs as a hardship and therefore this was a gray area, but if the Commission 5