CC 02-13-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - February 13, 2006 3 He indicated the Planning Commission at their February 1, 2006 regular meeting voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the varimce request subject to three conditions as noted in his report. He recommended Council approve Planning Case 05-21, 1479 Arden Place, Variance, subject to the three conditions of approval as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 report. Garfield Kachel, 1479 Arden Place, thaJ1ked Council for their patience. Couneilmember Holden asked how much ofthe addition would not be in the setback area. Mr. Lehnhoffresponded all of the addition would be in the setback. He noted a small portion of the existing structure was also currently in the setback. Councilmember Holden asked why the vote was so close at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Lehnhoff responded some of the Planning Commissioners were concerned that this did not meet the hardship criteria. Mayor Aplikowski noted the Commissioners did not have the new drawings at their meeting. Councilmember Grant rcqucsted an explanation of the foundation issue the Planning Commissioners discussed. Mr. Lehnhoff respondcd the Commissioners did discuss this and recommended that the entire structure be on a permment foundation as required by ordinance. MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve Plaooing Case 05-21, 1479 Arden Place Varimce, subject to the three conditions of approval as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 report. The motion carried unmimously (4-0). C. Planninl! Case #006-001: Dennis & Ann Claridl!e, 4038 Valentine Court - Minor Subdivision Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicaJlts own a 2.37 acre property at 4038 Valentine Court that was consolidated under one tax identification number from an original three platted lots. The applicant is requesting that the property be subdivided back into three properties with one modification to the original plat that would shift the proposed lot line between lot A and lot B ten feet to the south. He indicated the proposed lot sizes and configurations meet all requirements of the underlyingR-I Zone. He noted the Plmning Commission at their regular February I, 2006 meeting unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision subject to six conditions as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 report. Couneilmember Grant stated because only two of the lots were new, the park dedication fee should not count against the existing lot and he would be in favor of collecting a park dedication fee on the two new lots only. He noted the Planning Commission did not have the latitude to