2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 4, 2005 4 . Mr. Hellegers stated applicant was requesting a lO-foot side yard setback to allow the existing home to remain compliant with City Code while allowing for the expansion of Lexington A venue, for the property locatcd at 1105 Amble Drivc in Arden Hills. Staff recommended approval of the request. Commissioncr Larson asked if the evergreen trees would need to be removed and if so, would the trees bc relocated. Mr. Hellegers replied whcn Ramsey County went in to widen the project, they would havc prcpared an assessment as to what was thcre and the property owners would be compensated for the loss ofthc trees. Chair Sand asked if the easement being taken by the County was an existing easement or was this additional property for highway purposes. Mr. Hellcgers replicd this was beyond the existing right-of-way and this was new casement becausc of the addition of the tum lane. Chair Sand asked what jurisdiction did the County have in taking this easement. Mr. Hellegers replied the County could condemn the property, but the County tried to work this out with the propcrty owncrs and compensate the owners for the loss. Chair Sand asked if the temporary easement was a construction easement. Mr. Hellegcrs rcplied that was correct. . Chair Sand opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Chair Sand invitcd anyone tor or against the variance to come forward and make comment. Greg and Jean Peterson, 1105 Amble Drive. Mr. Peterson stated he was concemed with this rcqucst. He notcd right now the road being proposed was going to be as wide as a freeway with two lanes running both north and south and thc ten feet of his additional easement would make another lane, as well as thc median and another tum lane on the south side of the street. Hc indicated this was tuming into a wide street and expressed concem about additional noise. He noted his large pine trees would be removed and not rcplaccd. He statcd this was a residential property and not a commercial property and they would be living very close to an extrcmely busy strect. He expressed concem about a decrcase in property value to his home by living on this busy street. Hc asked if all of thc utilitics wcre bcing movcd closer to his propcrty and if thosc casements would also move closcr to his propcrty. Commissioncr Modcscttc askcd if Mr. Pctcrson if had bccn given any infonnation as to what utility easement would be. Mr. Peterson respondcd he had not reccived much infonnation and he had not becn given a guarantee of any fencc or wall. Commissioncr Bczdicck asked if Mr. Petcrson had consummated his abJfecment with the . County. Mr. Peterson replied thcy had not and the County had not at this point given them sufficient details, but thc County had described the process.