Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />DECEMBER 10, 2001 <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />sensitive as they can make it to the restraints that are on that property right now. He added the <br />builder has proposed landscaping that goes well beyond what the City requires trying to meet the <br />needs of the neighbors. He stated the number of caliper inches being provided and the amount of <br />landscaping more than typically required. He noted the plan does not meet the setback on the <br />north side. He added that with the garages at the back of the lots, the fence and the landscaping, it <br />is as good as it can be. He stated the developer has been sensitive to the privacy issue ofthe <br />owners by setting back the second floor. He added a house could be two stories and be more <br />mvaSlve. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated she was here two years ago when this was discussed. She <br />stated she was concerned about people not knowing about this. Mr. Parrish responded staff <br />followed the standard notification procedure. He stated they also had a list of individuals that did <br />receive notice. He noted there might be a variety of reasons why they did not see it when it was <br />received. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated this plan might not be to the neighbor's liking right now. She <br />noted that when one lives in a regular house, the neighbors could do things that a person does not <br />like. She added there is no recourse for that either. She stated that for the reasons explained by <br />Councilmember Larson, she thinks it is a good plan for that comer. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to <br />approve the Master Plan Planned Unit Development, and Final Planned Unit <br />Development/Site Plan, subject to the conditions ofthe Planning Commission. <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2. Case #01-30, Steve Petry, Lake Lane, Front Setback Variance <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish explained the request for a setback variance to the front yard setback in an R-2 <br />zoning District. He stated the requirement is 40 foot and the applicant proposed 30 foot. He noted <br />the site is currently a vacant lot. He added the applicant proposed an access to Edgewater Street, <br />which is improved. He stated Lake Lane is unimproved. He noted almost all of the adjacent <br />properties are single-family residential. He added that to the west is an institutional use by Odd <br />Fellows. He stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval ofthis <br />variance based on the five findings outlined in the staffreport. He noted the applicant stated <br />reason for the variance was to maintain an adequate back yard and to maintain a 40-inch diameter <br />tree on the property. He added the other properties on Edgewater Street did have 30-foot <br />setbacks. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated it did appear that other homes along Edgewater Street appeared closer than <br />the 40 feet required. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion <br />to approve in Planning Case #01-30 a front yard setback variance, subject to the <br />findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />e <br />