PCP 11-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 4,2006 5 Chair Sand stated he realized there were other properties in the City that had crushed rock . driveways and those properties were probably grandfathered in. Mr. Lis stated he understood that issue, but he believcd he had a hardship. Chair Sand statcd he was having a difficult time finding a hardship because it was not on the plan and there were alternative ways to improve the driveway, such as expanding the section without having access to the street to allow a turnaround. Mr. Lis stated the reason they put in a crushed rock surface was to save the trees. Chair Sand stated he believed they could take down the smaller pine tree to the right and not take down the oak trees. Mr. Lis stated he did not want to take down any trees. He noted the neighborhood had signed a petition against his home before it was built bccause of the trees having to be taken down. Hc stated the neighborhood did not want to sce any more trees taken down. Commissioner Thompson asked if the trees were on the City right-of-way. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they were very close. Commissioner Thompson stated from a hardship prospective that the length of the driveway for backing out was typical and this was not a busy street. She stated she had concerns allowing this when the Ordinance did not allow it. She stated the two entrances were not on the original plan. She stated she was not in favor of the two entrances. With . respect to the crushed rock, she did not think it was a bad idea to look at these types of options, but she did not know enough about the pros and cons of this to comment any further. Commissioner McClung stated they had previously determined in another case that the loss of trees was not considered a hardship and that would be the only way he could potentially find a hardship with the dual driveway. He stated he could not find a legitimate hardship with regard to the two driveway entrances. He stated with respect to the crushed rock, that might be something the City could look at, but the Ordinance required a paved surface and he would be voting against these variances. Mr. Lis stated the City Council passed the Ordinance in 2000. He asked why the Council passed this Ordinance. Commissioner McClung responded he could not say why the City required that. Commissioner Larson responded non-surfaced parking areas tended to disintegrate more than paved surfaces and this was required for maintenance purposes. He noted non- surfaced parking areas also eroded into the street. Commissioner Modesette noted other developments have also been required to meet the current Zoning Ordinances. .