Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />-. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />· MINUTES OF THE ARDEN H.S REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 13, 1987, 7:00 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn <br />called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. <br /> <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 /> <br />CLOSED MEETING <br />LABOR NEGOTIATIONS <br /> <br />RES. #87-36; ESTAB. <br />POS. OF MAINT WKR I <br /> <br />Council discussed labor negotiations between 7:00 and <br />7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Moved by Sather, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br />adopt Resolution No. 87-36; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING <br />POSITION OF MAINTENANCE WORKER I. Motion carried. (3-0) <br /> <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 /> <br />BUSINESS FROM FLOOR <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />CASE #87-20; MINOR <br />SUBDIVISION; 3731 <br />NEW BRIGHTON ROAD <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's memorandum (6-25-87) <br />relative to the Minor subdivision of the lot at 3731 <br />New Brighton Road, James and Carol Milton. <br /> <br />Miller explained the applicants are proposing to split a ISO-foot by 62.5-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 /> <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 /> <br />James and Carol Milton, applicants, were present to answer any questions. <br /> <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 applicant'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 /> <br />CASE #87-21; SITE <br />COVERAGE VARIANCE <br />PKING. LOT EXPAN. <br />1275 RED FOX ROAD <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's memorandum (6-25-87) <br />relative to the Site Coverage Variance request for <br />parking lot expansion, 1275 Red Fox Road, Everest II. <br /> <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 I-2 District is 75 percent. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Winiecki questioned the percentage of reduction in green space if <br />the variance were granted. <br /> <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 />