CCP 11-30-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Arden Hills Council 7 November 9, 1992 filed with the City, and measures to improve water quality in the existing pond be investigated in conjunction with these permits. - With regard to fire protection, per the recommendations of the Fire Marshall, the entire complex (including garages) is to be equipped with a suppression sprinkler system, and fire hydrants are to be relocated to the satisfaction of the local Fire Marshall, - A revised landscape plan be submitted and approved, which addresses landscaping of the entire site rather than only the building site. - Congregate areas be established in courtyard areas of the complex. - A bus shelter be provided. - Signage comply with the City's sign ordinance, setback and location requirements. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). CASE NO. 92-19 WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM . FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING OWEN RASMUSSEN, 2020 THOM DRIVE As background for Case #92-19, Bergly reported that the applicant's lot at 2020 Thorn Drive in an R-2 district, is about 20,000 square feet in area (nearly twice the required R-2 lot size of 11,000 square feet). He explained that the applicant has requested waiver of the development moratorium ordinance to construct a 24 ft. X 40 ft. (960 square foot) 10-foot high eave line garage/storage building on his property. Bergly further explained that current ordinance does not limit the size of such accessory buildings, but the proposed revised zoning ordinance would limit the maximum size of such accessory buildings to 700 square feet. He pointed out that because the applicant's lot is considerably larger than the R-2 minimum lot size, the ratio of the proposed- sized accessory building to the applicant's large lot would be comparable to the ratio of a standard~sized garage to a standard-sized lot. Bergly added that the applicant's home is also considerably larger than other homes in the neighborhood, and the proposed accessory building was part of original plans for the lot. He stated the applicant was originally advised . that the proposed building was consistent with the existing ordinance and was not aware of the recently imposed development moratorium until he applied for a building permit for the accessory building.