CCP 09-30-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 7 Commissioner Smithknecht asked if the trees could stay if they wanted them to stay. Mr. . Nelson replied they could not stay; they had not been maintained and they were considered scrub trees and would be replaced with much better trees. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the City Engineer had looked at the drainage plan. Mr. Parrish replied given the fact that it was less than an acre in size, the Rice Creek Watershed District had not done any review, but the City Engineer had seen the original plan and they had identified a few issues and it would be necessary that a final draining plan be presented and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Nelson replied that their civil engineer had addressed the drainage issue and the drainage plan would be submitted prior to them applying for a building permit. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the City Engineer had looked at the traffic impact for this area. Mr. Parrish replied the City Engineer had not looked at the traffic impact yet. Chair Sand asked why a one-story building would not work. Mr. Nelson replied they had an architect look at a possible one-story building, but it would not allow for enough interior space and there would be a lot of wasted space. Also, there would not be sufficient parking if they went with a one-story building. He stated this was not an economic Issue. Commissioner Ricke suggested a two-story building, but one which was smaller to meet . the buffer yard requirements. Mr. Nelson replied they did meet the buffer yard requirements, but there was a possibility to move the building to the south, which they might end up doing. Mr. Parrish replied there had been tlrree actions with respect to this development. The first one being a concept review and the neighborhood business ordinances were just being established. He stated the next action was last December and it was determined a 15 foot buffer was sufficient because the parking would be encroaching and not the building. He stated a buffer yard requirement was essentially that there should be some type of a buffer zone, but under the POD, it allowed for a deviation from the buffer zone. He stated the buffer zone was the primary issue. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if the north fence would be six feet high and had they considered the fence being 8 feet high. Mr. Nelson replied this architect did not recommend a higher fence because they were susceptible to coming down in straight-line winds and they were not very attractive. He stated if the neighbors wanted the additional two feet added to the proposed 6-foot fence, he would be willing to do that, if the neighbors wanted to pay for the additional two feet. He also stated there was nothing precluding the neighbors from adding additional landscaping to their property if they were concerned about screening. Commissioner Smithknecht asked what type of drainage problems would there be if they added a berm. Mr. Nelson replied, the water would stay on the neighbors property and would not drain properly. He indicated he was not objecting to adding a berm and adding a fence to the top of the berm, but he would not take responsibility for drainage issues on .