06-07-1989 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, June 7, 1989 Page 5 CASE #89-08 (Cont'd) Planner Bergly explained the facility will service drive-up customers only. He advised he has had discussions with the applicant regarding a lessened landscape plan in lieu of the • building meeting the required setbacks; he stated there may be some leeway in the landscape plan and he will continue to discuss this matter with the applicant. Winiecki commented the resubmitted plan is more attractive than the building previously approved. She referred to the Board of Appeals suggestion that the building be placed in the rear of the site and noted she preferred to exchange its visibility for the landscaping; the location in front of the building provides a safety factor for customers. A representative from the Roseville Bank explained the main reason for the requested variance was to offer safety to the bank customers; the automatic teller is currently located in the rear of the bank. She also stated the bank feels this plan is more attractive than the previously approved plan. She explained the lighting would be only on the signage and for the customers at the drive-up level; it will be low intensity and meet ordinance requirements. The representative explained the reason for the delay in constructing the ATM was due to the recent purchase of the bank facility. The representative from the bank advised that alternatives were considered for location of the ATM; she reviewed the alternative locations. The reasons stated for the requested variances were: customer safety, ease of traffic flow, and location in front provides for future bank expansion to the rear. Planner Bergly noted the parking requirements for the site will still meet ordinance requirements and the building will not block traffic views from either • adjacent street. Member Piotrowski referred Commission to the site plan and indicated an area that would appear to be appropriate for location of the ATM. She stated the Board of Appeals expressed the opinion the banks only reason for locating the ATM in the front yard was for advertising purposes. Piotrowski expressed concern that approval would set a precedent for other banking establishments; she did not believe there is a justifiable hardship. She also noted the bank may require more parking if the facility expands in the future and a parking variance may be necessary. Chairman Probst and Member Woodburn shared the concern relative to setting a precedent for other banking establishments. There was discussion relative to lighting on the facility. The bank representative advised they would adhere to the requirements in the city code. McGraw moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #89-08, Variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard of a principal building (Automatic Teller Machine) , 4016 Lexington Avenue North, Roseville Bank, based on the following: 1. The new proposal conforms to the zoning ordinance to a greater extent than the previously granted request. 2. The brick enclosure will be a more attractive addition to the site than • the previously approved metal enclosure. 3. The size and scale of the structure is not as obtrusive as other accessory buildings (mainly garages) for which the applicable ordinance requirement was intended. 4. The standard front yard setback in the I-1 district of 55 feet is met by the accessory building. Motion carried. (McGraw, Zehm, Petersen and Winiecki voting in favor; Probst, Piotrowski and Woodburn opposed) (4-3)