My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-27-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CCP 07-27-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:01 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:42:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> ...3 <br /> MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />. Monday, July 13, 1987, 7:00 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn <br /> called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. <br /> ROLL CALL The roll being called the following members were <br /> present: Mayor Woodburn, Councilmembers Thomas Sather <br /> and Jeanne Winiecki. Councilmember Peck arrived at 8:00 p.m. Absent: <br /> Councilmember Nancy Hansen. Also present: Attorney James Lynden, Planner Orlyn <br /> Miller, Treasurer Donald Lamb, Public Works Supervisor Robert Raddatz, Clerk <br /> Administrator Patricia Morrison and Deputy Clerk Catherine Iago. <br /> CLOSED MEETING Council discussed labor negotiations between 7:00 and <br /> LABOR NEGOTIATIONS 7:30 p.m. <br /> RES. #87-36: ESTAB. Moved by Sather, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br /> POS. OF MAINT WKR I adopt Resolution No. 87-36: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING <br /> POSITION OF MAINTENANCE WORKER I. Motion carried. (3-0) <br /> APPROVE MINUTES Sather moved, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br /> approve the minutes of the Regular Council meeting of <br /> June 29th and the Special Council meeting of July 8, 1987, as submitted. Motion <br /> carried unanim9usly. (3-0) <br /> BUSINESS FROM FLOOR None. <br />. CASE #87-20; MINOR Council was referred to Planner's memorandum (6-25-87) <br /> SUBDIVISION; 3731 relative to the Minor subdivision of the lot at 3731 <br /> NEW BRIGHTON ROAD New Brighton Road, James and Carol Milton. <br /> Miller explained the applicants are proposing to split a 150-foot by 62.s-foot <br /> parcel from Lot A and consolidate it with Lot B, as per the drawing submitted. <br /> The purpose is to "even-up" the rear lot line of the developed lot which fronts <br /> on New Brighton Road. <br /> Council was referred to Planning Commission minutes (7-1-87) recommending <br /> approval, subject to the applicant submitting a surveyor other recordable <br /> document to the City for administrative review and approval. <br /> James and Carol Milton, applicants, were present to answer any questions. <br /> Moved by Sather, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br /> approve Case #87-20, Minor Subdivision of lot at 3731 New Brighton Road, James <br /> and Carol Milton, contingent upon the appliCent' s submission to the City of a <br /> formal surveyor other recordable document acceptable to the Ramsey County <br /> Recorder, for administrative review and approval. Motion carried. (3-0 ) <br /> CASE #87-21: SITE Council was referred to Planner's memorandum (6-25-87) <br /> COVERAGE VARIANCE relative to the Site Coverage Variance request for <br /> PKING. LOT EXPAN. parking lot expansion, 1275 Red Fox Road, Everest II. <br /> 1275 RED FOX ROAD <br />. Miller explained the applicant is proposing to enlarge the existing parking lot <br /> to provide 31 additional spaces to accommodate the building tenant's parking <br /> demand; tenant is Deluxe Check. He explained the proposed expansion would <br /> results in total site coverage of 79.5 percent; maximum coverage permitted in <br /> the 1-2 District is 75 percent. <br /> Council was referred to an excerpt from the Board of Appeals minutes of June <br /> 30th; the Board was evenly split with two members voting in favor and two <br /> members opposed to the variance request (reasons noted in minutes). Miller also <br /> reviewed the Planning Commission minutes of 7/1/87; members recommended denial <br /> of the variance based on the fact there is no identifiable hardship. <br /> The Planner explained that the Commission recommended the applicant increase <br /> the parking, if so desired, up to the 75 percent maximum coverage permitted; <br /> conditioned upon the expansion being accomplished at the rear of the building. <br />. He pointed out that it may not be feasible for the applicant to expand to the <br /> 75 percent maximum due to the fact they could only achieve about one-third of <br /> the 31 spaces proposed and this would not alleviate the parking problem. <br /> Councilmember Winiecki questioned the percentage of reduction in green space if <br /> the variance were granted. <br /> Miller stated the requirement for this District is 25 percent green space; <br /> approval of the variance would reduce the green space to 20 percent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.