08-03-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, August 3, 1988 Page 3 CASE #88-22 (Cont'd) Craig Hjelle, representing Bethel College, advised the parking lot adjacent to the new maintenance storage building would be deleted and left as open space. • Probst questioned if the one year time-frame for installation of bituminous surface was acceptable to the applicant. Hjelle advised that period of time would be workable for staging and budgeting for the parking lot improvement. Piotrowski moved, seconded by Meury, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-22, Site Plan Review for Parking Lot Expansion and Variance for Surfacing Material, Bethel College, contingent upon the following: 1. The Watershed District issue a permit for the proposed stormwater drainage plan, including repair of the eroded ditch adjacent to the parking lot. 2. The Village Engineer approve the surfacing material as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The College provide a bituminous surface on this lot within one year from the date of Council approval. 4. That one of the parking lots shown in the southeast area of the Campus Master Plan be deleted. Motion carried unanimously. (6-0) CASE #88-23; REAR Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report dated YARD SETBACK VAR. , 8-3-88, outlining the request for a 12 ft. rear yard • 1377 EIDE CIRCLE, variance for construction of a three-season porch at GERALD DREYLING 1377 Eide Circle. Bergly stated the applicant currently has an open deck and proposes to enclose the deck area. He advised the property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac backing onto a natural area in Floral Park. The applicant had planted a row of Columnar Poplars on City park property (with City permission) adjacent to his property; the trees are now mature and provide adequate separation between the residence and the park. The Planner advised the adjacent homeowners had been contacted and have no objections to the proposal; the porch will not be visible from neighboring homes. Bergly explained the lot depth of 100 feet is less than required by ordinance and the house is placed approximately 9 ft. further to the rear than the required 40-ft. front yard setback. He stated he had reviewed old topography maps and it would appear there was a drainageway between two wetlands that crossed the lot at about the normal front setback line; he noted the possibility the house was located to avoid unnecessary excavation and filling. Planner Bergly advised the Zoning Ordinance provides for variances to be granted based on the shape of the lot or unusual terrain that would prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be permitted without variance on a similar size lot in the same district. He also noted that the variance would have no negative visual impact on the adjacent property owners. • Commission was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes of 7-21-88 recommending approval of the variance based on the hardship due to lot configuration and that due to sufficient foliage and natural buffers the adjacent properties would not be negatively impacted. Gerald Dreyling, applicant, was present.