CCP 11-09-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ,. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING VILLAGE OF ARDEN HILLS October 15,1987 . CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Barbara Piotrowski, ROLL CALL Present: Chair Barbara Piotrowski, Rose O'Neill-Hedlund, Ray McGraw, Dave Carlson and Jean Lemberg. Absent: Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki. Also Present: Dean Hansen, Vice-President, and Dan Ashbach, Member of the Board of Directors, Roseville Bank. , CASE #87-31 - SETBACK VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, 4601 North Lexin~ton , Ave., Roseville Bank. There was confusion among the members of the Board as to which variances were necessary for the proposed accessory structure at the Bank; in the Agenda packet, dated 8-11-87, only one variance was requested; in the Planner's memorandum of 10-14-87, 3 variances were needed, The Board was then shown a third layout for the ATM placement, by bank representatives, at the meeting. The Board voted 4 in favor (O'Neill-Hedlund, McGraw, Carlson and Lemberg, 1 opposed (Piotrowski), for drawing #2, as attached) and it's required variances. There was discussion relative to whether Member Carlson should abstain from voting, as his father is a member of the Board of Directors for the Roseville Bank; Carlson advised the Board that he had no conflict of interest. The members voting in favor of the requested variance stated the opinion that . the requested variances would not negatively affect adjacent properties. The member voting in opposition expressed the opinion 'that: 1. There is no evident hardship or "reasonable cause" to grant the three variances necessary. There was no problem with the Bank wanting to relocate the ATM for safety, visibility and access, however, it was her opinion that there is enough yard area to place the ATM in a location on the site where only one variance would be necessary for an accessory structure in the front yard. , . 2, The proposal would create a loss of approximately 80 ft. of green area and walkway, as shown in drawing #2. 3. Plan #3 (as attached) would be more aesthetically pleasing and only two parking spaces would be eliminated, rather than 5 spaces as shown in Plan #2. CASE #87-32 - REARYARD SETBACK VARIANCE, 1891 Lake Lane, Kieffer. The Board voted unanimously (5-0) in favor of a variance; Chair Piotrowski asked Delores Kieffer if a setback of 6 feet, as opposed to the requested 5 feet, would accommodate the proposed addition to her residence. Kieffer advised that a 6 ft. variance would be workable. Rationale for request; there are at least three houses on the street that currently have rear setbacks of 6 ft., due to the lots being substandard depth. .