Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br /> SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 8 <br /> . <br /> B. Ordinanee 345: Rezoninf Certain Properties from an R 2 Zone to a NB <br /> Zone Seeond Readinf <br /> C. Planning Case No. 03-22: Nolting Variance <br /> Mr. Ilellegers stated applicants were requesting a variance of 36.96 feet from the <br /> front yard setback, a variance of 5 feet from the current side yard setback for <br /> accessory buildings, and a variance to Section 6, A, 3 which states that no <br /> accessory structure shall be nearer the front lot line than what was the required <br /> front setback. He indicated the variance would allow the applicant to construct a <br /> new two-car garage in approximately the same location as the existing two-car <br /> garage. He noted the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the <br /> variance with conditions. <br /> Councilmember Holden asked if this proposal was for a larger two-car garage. <br /> Mr. Hellegers noted this was correct. He indicated the neighbors in the area had <br /> . supported this proposal. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Rem moved and Council member Grant seconded a <br /> motion to Planning Case No. 03-22, Earl and Judith Nolting, 336 <br /> Lake Johanna Boulevard Variance (Zoning Ordinance) with <br /> conditions as noted in staffs September 29, 2003 report. The motion <br /> carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> D. Planning Case No. 03-23: Guidant Site Plan Review Parking Ramp #1 <br /> Mr. Hellegers explained applicant was requesting approval of a Site Plan Review <br /> for Parking Ramp #1. He indicated the Planning Commission had recommended <br /> approval of this site plan with conditions as noted in staffs September 29, 2003 <br /> report. <br /> Councilmember Holden expressed concern about both visual and nOise <br /> buffering. Mr. Hellegers replied the grow wall would not buffer noise, but would <br /> be visually appealing. He noted trees would buffer the noise. <br /> . Councilmember Grant stated he was not impressed with the grow wall concept <br /> because of Minnesota's limited growing season. He stated he believed the grow <br /> wall could be a secondary screening method used. He indicated he wanted a <br />