Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . <br /> Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, June 8, 1987 ., <br /> Page 4 <br /> CHAR. GAMB. (Cont'd) Council concurred to hold further discussion of the <br /> proposed Charitable Gambling Ordinance until after an . <br /> Attorney General's opinion has been received relative to the Little Canada <br /> operation and the Village Attorney has had an opportunity to review new State <br /> Legislation and discuss the Little Canada bingo operation with their staff. <br /> CASE #87-l7; VAR. Council was referred to Planner's report of 5/27/87, <br /> ll36 HUNTERS CT. the Board of Appeals Minutes (5-2l-87) and Planning <br /> Commission Minutes (6-3-87) both recommending approval <br /> of the variance . <br /> Miller explained the house currently has a small roofed porch at the front <br /> entrance and the applicant is proposing to enclose the open porch. The <br /> enclosure will extend to within 35 ft. of the front lot line; the Arden Hills <br /> code permits a 3 ft. encroachment for an "open porch". however, a 40 ft. <br /> setback is required for an enclosed entrance. <br /> The Planner noted that no hardship related to the land has been identified and <br /> stated justification would have to relate to placement of the house on the lot <br /> and the fact that no reasonable alternatives exist for an enclosed entry (as <br /> noted in the Planning and Board of Appeals minutes). <br /> Council was referred to a letter signed by nine neighbors of the applicant; <br /> stating they are not opposed to the variance as requested. <br /> Moved by Sather. seconded by Peck. that Council approve <br /> Case #87-l7. a 5 ft. Front Setback Variance at ll36 Hunter Court. as submitted. <br /> Discussion ensued relative to whether or not a precedent would be established . <br /> on this cul-de-sac street. Hiller advised that on a curvilinear street uneven <br /> setbacks are not as apparent as when homes are set in a straight line. <br /> Councilmember Hansen commented that after viewing the site, it was her opinion <br /> that the appearance of the home would be enhanced by the enclosure. <br /> Motion carried. (Sather, Peck. Hansen, Winiecki voting in favor; Woodburn <br /> opposed) (4-1) <br /> CASE #87-18; SITE Council was referred to Planner's report. 5-27-87, and <br /> PLAN REV. & VAR., Planning Commission minutes (6-3-87), recommending <br /> ARDEN HILLS CLUB approval. with conditions as outlined in the Planning <br /> minutes. <br /> Miller explained the applicant is proposing to replace the air-supported <br /> structure. as well as expand by adding two additional tennis courts and <br /> increasing the parking area. He reviewed the current parking situation and <br /> explained that in his opinion the two additional courts coupled with 20 <br /> additional parking spaces will not increase the parking deficiency but will <br /> contribute to the general parking supply. Miller noted that if the intensity of <br /> use of the facility increases significantly, the applicant will have to <br /> research the possibility of "shared parking" with Control Data. <br /> The Planner referred Council to the Board of Appeals letter dated 6/8/87. . <br /> recommending approval of the 5 ft. height variance as requested. <br /> Council discussed the proposed alternate parking lot design as prepared by the <br /> Planner; questioned if the driveway shown to the south is currently in place <br /> and expressed concern about safety for patrons of the facility. <br /> Miller advised that the southerly driveway is currently used as a service <br /> drive, therefore. patrons are aware of it; he also commented that the service <br /> drive could use upgrading and the alternate parking lot design would allow for <br /> upgrading in conjunction with the expansion. as well as creating extra parking <br /> spaces and eliminating the third access onto Fernwood Avenue. He advised <br /> Council that the dumpster located in the service drive area is not currently <br /> screened and the applicant would have to provide screening. <br /> There was discussion relative to the parking deficiency. The Planner stated . <br /> that the Special Use Permit approved for the Sports Clinic located in the <br /> facility included a stipulation for review of the parking area and compliance <br /> to parking requirements if a. problem arises; he noted a possible alternative <br /> would be a "shared parking" agreement with Control Data. <br /> u <br />