Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the RegUl~ouncil Meeting, June 8, 1987 ~ <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />, <br /> <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 /> <br />CASE #87-17; VAR. <br />1136 HUNTERS CT. <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's report of 5/27/87, <br />the Board of Appeals Minutes (5-21-87) and Planning <br />Commission Minutes (6-3-87) both recommending approval <br />of the variance . <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Moved by Sather, seconded by Peck, that Council approve . <br />Case #87-17, a 5 ft. Front Setback Variance at 1136 Hunter Court, as submitted. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relative to whether or not a precedent would be established <br />on this cul-de-sac street. Miller advised that on a curvilinear street uneven <br />setbacks are not as apparent as when homes are set in a straight line. <br /> <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 /> <br />Motion carried. (Sather, Peck, Hansen, Winiecki voting in favor; Woodburn <br />opposed) (4-1) <br /> <br />CASE #87-18; SITE <br />PLAN REV. & VAR.. <br />ARDEN HILLS CLUB <br /> <br />Council was referred to Planner's report, 5-27-87, and <br />Planning Commission minutes (6-3-87), recommending <br />approval, with conditions as outlined in the Planning <br />minutes. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 />