My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 07-12-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CC 07-12-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:23 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 1:27:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />JULY 12, 2004 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated the hardship should be attached to the property, not the external circumstances. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayor Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion <br />to approve Planning Case No. 04-12: Arend Variance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holdeu clarified that they were approving Option A. Mr. Hellegers replied <br />Option A was what was being requested. <br /> <br />The motion failed (2-2) (Councilmembers Grant and Holden - nay). <br /> <br />Mr. Arend stated they were willing to reduce the garage size from 24 feet to 22 feet if that made <br />a difference. He stated they were also willing to go down to a two-car garage if it meant that they <br />did not have to pave their backyard. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated the reason she voted no was because when they purchased the <br />lot, they knew the size of the property. Mr. Arend replied they did not have a plat of the <br />property until after the purchase and it not until that time, did they realize that the building <br />envelope was considerable smaller than the surrounding properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden stated she did not have an issue with a three-car garage but her concern <br />was a 24-foot variance was too large of a variance. She indicated a 22-foot variance would help. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated his concern was not the three-car garage, but the magnitude of the <br />variance and that other options existed for what they were proposing to do. <br /> <br />Mrs. Arend stated they were having difficulty understanding why the variance was too large. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski noted the motion had failed and applicants needed to come back with a <br />different option. <br /> <br />B. Planninl! Case No. 04-13: Guidant SUP for Satellite Antennae <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers stated applicant had requested a Special Use Permit to allow a 3.1 meter satellite <br />to be placed on the roof of the Guidant Building L (Training Center). At the July Planning <br />Commission meeting, the Planning Commission made a finding that the proposed special use <br />would not adversely affect the surrounding area or community as a whole and recommended <br />approval of the Special Use Permit subject to the two conditions as noted in staff's July 12,2004 <br />report. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a <br />motion to approve Planning Case No. 04-13: Guidant SUP for Satellite <br />Antennae subject to the two conditions as noted in staffs July 12, 2004 <br />report. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.