Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1,2006 6 <br /> believed they were protecting the public by keeping the trees, then there would be a . <br /> hardship. He noted if the variance was not approved, this would not make a difference. <br /> Gary Findell, applicant, presented the survey showing the trees. He explained what he <br /> was proposing to do with the lot. He noted an alternative was to move the house so there <br /> would be no variances required, but that would entail removing significant trees to move <br /> the house, He stated he intended on living in one of the homes being built. He showed <br /> an example of a one and one-half store house to the Commission. He showed the two <br /> trees that would bc required to be removed with the building of the new home. <br /> Commissioner Zimmerman stated there appeared to be about 31 feet between the two <br /> homes, He noted the side yard setback was 10 feet. He asked why he did not divide the <br /> difference with the new property line and that way they would not need the utility <br /> easement or variance. Mr. Findell responded the building plans for the new home were <br /> not definite and he wanted the variance and subdivision before finalizing the design of <br /> the home. <br /> Mr. Lehnhoff stated if the lot line were moved farther to the east, the eastern lot would <br /> not meet minimum lot width requirements. <br /> Richard Navratil, 1415 Skiles Lane, cxpressed concern about the trees. He indicated the <br /> trees added a lot of character to the neighborhood. He stated ifthey removed a portion of <br /> the existing home, it would become smaller. He asked ifthere was a minimum structure <br /> size. He suggested the main entrylbreezeway be removed and the house moved over then . <br /> thc trees could be preserved on the west side. He indicated he did not want to see the <br /> house smaller. He stated there was also the possibility to add a second story to the home <br /> to have it more like the rest of the neighborhood in home size. He stated he did like the <br /> picture of the possible proposed new home Mr. Findell presented. <br /> Mr. Findell stated the plans for the old home was to remove the living room and finish off <br /> the area between the home and garage, which would add more feet onto the home than <br /> they were taking off. <br /> Mark Bohnenstinge, 1394 Skiles, stated he was concerned about the trees also. He asked <br /> if it was possible to add a condition to require the homeowner to add additional trees if <br /> trecs were removed. He asked if there was a maximum square footage for a single-family <br /> home, He expressed concern that because the developer did not have a specific design in <br /> mind for the new home, the home would be too large. He asked if there was an ordinance <br /> for rental property under single-family homes. He expressed concern the existing home <br /> might be placed up for rent, which he believed would degrade the value of other homes in <br /> the area. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they did not have specific tree ordinances on <br /> residential properties, but because this was a variance, the City could add restrictions on <br /> trees. With respect to a maximum square footage limitation, there was a lot coverage <br /> limit. He stated the structure could not cover more than 25 percent of the lot. He noted <br /> the minimum width for a structure size was 20 feet, which would be 400 square feet. <br /> With respect to renting homes, this was out of the Commissioner's scope of decisions and . <br /> this would be a Council decision. He noted there was a height limit of 35 feet on a <br /> structure also. <br /> 6 <br />