06-07-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 4 Case #89-06 (Cont'd) Woodburn stated the 75 ft. setback from the lake is mandated by State law and he did not favor recommending approval for the variances requested. • Member Piotrowski advised that the Board of Appeals was not aware of the previously granted variances; stated the Board may have utilized the information prior to making a recommendation for approval. She did not support the requested variances as it appears there is no justifiable hardship for either request. Winiecki moved, seconded by Zehm, that commission recommend to Council denial of Case #89-06, an application for an 8 ft. Sideyard Setback Variance and a 5 ft. Lakeshore Setback Variance, 3220 North Hamline Avenue, Thomas Lynch, based on lack of an identifiable hardship. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) In discussion, Chairman Probst expressed concern that Commission would be setting a precedent for difficult building sites remaining in the City by recommending approval of the requested variances. Piotrowski moved that Commission table action on this matter until the next regular Planning meeting to allow the Board of Appeals an opportunity to review the actions on the previously granted variances for this property and reconsider their recommendation. Motion failed for lack of second. Member Winiecki noted there is sufficient time prior to the Council meeting on June 26 for the Board to meet to discuss the matter and make a recommendation to Council. • CASE #89-08; VAR. Planner Bergly referred Commission to his report of ALLOW ACCESSORY 6-7-89, relative to the request for a variance to allow STRUCTURE IN FRONT an accessory building in the front yard of a principal YARD, 4016 LEXINGTON building, 4106 Lexington Avenue, Roseville Bank. AVE, ROSEVILLE BANK Bergly noted the Council had approved a request to allow an automatic teller machine in a steel enclosure in the fall of 1987. The zoning ordinance stipulates that the work required by the variance must begin within six months of approval and concluded within one year from approval. Since the time has lapsed, the applicant is now reapplying and requesting a variance only from the requirement to allow the accessory structure in the front yard; previous approval included front yard setback variances along County Road F and Lexington Avenue. The Planner stated the building proposed is to be brick rather than the steel enclosure initially approved. Signage is illustrated on the drawings attached to the application and will conform with the ordinance requirement of no more than 10% of the area of the facade. He noted the attached site plan shows the proposed new location of the ATM relative to the required setbacks and traffic circulation pattern; the plan conforms with all requirements of the ordinance except the accessory building in the front yard of a principal structure. He recommended approval of the revised request and listed four reasons in his report to support the recommendation. Commission asked the following questions: • Is this a drive-up facility or do customers enter this building? Will the facility be landscaped and lighted and to what extent? -Has the applicant considered alternate locations on the site for the ATM? -Will parking be sufficient upon removal of parking spaces to accommodate the ATM? -Will the ATM block traffic views from either adjacent street?