Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ----- -- ----------- <br />p' ..nnh"J n. ..... i..sian Meeting 4 U-04-92 <br />Cl\SE #92-17: REZCImC 1\ND PINlNED UNIT OEl7ELOl'MEN1'. CLEVELAND AVENllE. JaIN <br />1\RKELL (Continued) <br />'!he Applicant does not dis=iminate as to where a handicap resident . <br />would like to live, therefore all units are handicap adaptable. <br /> Carlson moved, seconded by Mc:Q'aw, to waive the Develq;:ment <br />Moratorium Ordinance. All voted in favor. (5-0). <br /> , <br /> M::Graw moved, seconded by Petersen to Rezone the property iran R-2 <br />to R-3 upon issuance of a J:uilding permit for the pxoposed PUD with a <br />density of 6.5 units per a=e as allowed in the proposed Zoning <br />Ordinance revisions. All voted in favor. (5-0). <br /> Carlson moved, seconded by Mc:Q'aw to recommend to Council awroval <br />of Case #92-17, PUD General Developnent Plan and Final Plan for the <br />Cottage villas of Arden Hills with conditions A thru G outlined under #3 <br />of the Plarmer's report dated November 4, 1992, and further conditions <br />as follows: 1) the three items listed in the Fire Marshall's memo of <br />November 4, 1992 to Catherine Iago relating to sprinkling the J:uildin;J <br />and the fire acx:ess road; 2) that a bus shelter be provided for <br />residents of the complex; 3) that a ~te area be established in <br />one of the courtyards in lieu of the area shown in the circular <br />drive; and 4) that the lot stakes be replaced at the residence of <br />Elizabeth MOO""""9tte, 3743 New Brighton Bd at the expense of the <br />applicant. All voted in favor. (5-0). <br />ClISE #92-19. W1lIVER OF ~ CIlO:INlIN::E: 2020 TJI[K I:lUVE. afEN R1lSMUSSEN <br />Planner Bergly referred to his report dated November 4, 1992, and . <br />explained that the Applicant is requesting that the Moratorium Ordinance <br />be waived to allow him to construct a 24' x 40' (960 sf) garage/5t=age <br />bJildin;J that is allowed under the present Ordinance. <br />Bergly reviewed the findings listed in his report: <br />1- '!he present Ordinance does not limit the size of such a~~ory <br /> 1::uildin;Js. <br />2. '!he proposed Ordinance, as revised at a recent Plarming Commission <br /> meeting, would limit such a=<:nry J:uildin;Js to a maximum size of <br /> 700 sq. ft. <br />3. The Applicant's lot is located in a small neighborhood with <br /> smaller, lower value hames, many with =nsiderable outdoor <br /> storage. <br />4. The Applicant's lot is 20,000 sq. ft., =nsiderably larger than <br /> the 11,000 sq. ft. allowed in the R-2 District so the ratio of the <br /> garage to the lot will be similar to a standard lot with a <br /> standard garage. <br />5. The Applicant's new home is =nsiderably larger than other homes <br /> in the neighborhood. The larger detached arro.'''''sory J:uilding was <br /> planned as part of the original developnent and to be =nsistent <br /> with the existing Ordinance. The garage is staked out and crushed <br /> r=k base is in place as well as a crushed r=k drive next to the <br /> house. The applicant was unaware of the Moratorium Ordinance . <br /> until he applied for a a building permit for the garage. <br />6. The proposed garage is needed to house two =llector cars (now <br /> stored in the attached garage) arrl miscellaneous material and <br /> equipment now stored outdoors. <br />- -- --- <br />