07-11-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 1, 2005 11 In our May 24 comments under "Drainage," we questioned the applicant's claim of "40.3% open space" and requested professional confirmation. As indicated in item 4A on page 13, staff has calculated the landscape lot area to be closer to 33%, about 5,000 square feet below NB zoning requirements of 35% in view of the latter's exclusion of areas less than 10 feet in width or less than 500 square feet in area. Replacement of 15 parking spaces in three areas selected by staff but not specifically identified would increase landscape lot area to at least 35%, still well below the claimed 40%. If this is done, our identification of parking spaces adjacent to Lot 20 and closest to residences on Arden View Drive for removal should be included in the number. . 3) Other recommendation. In several cases other than identified above, staff has recommended inclusion of conditions in the POD document that mayor may not be included in the 17 specific conditions of approval. Exmnples are the requirements in item 4A that Rmnsey County approve planting in the right of way area (on page 6) and that landscaping in the buffer yard area include coniferous trees (on page 7.). We support all such recommendations." Jim Bharmal, 4540 Keithson Drive, stated he missed the May 24 meeting because he did not get the meeting notice. He indicated when he bought is house in 1990, he bought it thinking he was going to live in a residential neighborhood and the only structure by his house was the City office and public works building, which he was okay with, but now he . was looking at 300 parking spaces and a 30-unit office complex which he did not want. He stated he felt betrayed by the City. He expressed concern about the number of buildings and he felt it would be an invasion of his privacy. He expressed concern about the lighting and the effect the lighting would have on his house. He stated he was 100 percent positive that the property values would decrease due to the increase in traffic because of this project. He indicated this project was not fit for this particular area and he requested they ensure that the people that lived on Keithson Drive that there would be proper steps taken prohibiting any retail or restaurants from coming into the development. He expressed concern about the large parking area. He requested this development follow the rules and he did not want to be penalized as a homeowner. Gale Van Buskirk, 1390 Arden View Drive, outlined negative impacts not considered: Neec for an additional office building in Arden Hills is not justified in proposal or marketing study. Is there a real market need for more office space in Arden Hills? Will poor traffic access both in and out of the development dissuade potential office building buyers? What are the negative impacts on the neighborhood and City of Arden Hills, if office buildings are not sold? Estimates for loss of property values and quality of life of surrounding residential properties not taken into account in the big economic picture. She asked the Planning Commission to look at the bigger details in their decision tonight. She proposed they erect an 8 to 10 foot high berm along the southern border of the devclopment with conifers on top of it. She stated the advantages for the developer would be to provide additional landscape (over 5000 square feet), without losing 15 parking spaces; adds attractive setting to development; consistent with berm on eastern . border of development; utilizes surplus soil from grading; no soil removal; eliminates retaining walls and their maintenance; promotes good water drainage with proper sloping; retains rolling hill appearance of Highway 96 developments; contributes to screening requirements of 60% opacity year-round without using fences. Advantages for