CC 04-21-1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~tinlltes of Special Counci I ,Ieeting Page four Apr! I 21, 1975 Art Hage, Contractor, noted that Mr. Jerry Neisen, General Manager qf Liv-A-Snaps has agreed to fence the mechanical equipment on the roof of existing bui Idlng, as requested by the Planning Commission. Case No. 75-13, Bradford LemberR - Front Set-back Variance Fredlund referred Counci I to the Planning Commiss-ion Minutes of Apri I 15, 1975, and to the Board of Appeals report dated 4/15/75, recommending Counci I approval of the 6t' front set~back variance. After discussion Wingert moved, seconded by Woodburn, that on the basis of energy conservation, aesthetic improvement and neighbors approval of the variance, Council approve the 6t foot setback variance, as requested, and recommen:Jeo for approval,by the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals; inside door to be installed as per plans submitted. Motion carried unanimously. . Case No. 75-8, Gene Guthmueller - Lot Spilt Fredlund referred Counci I to the Planning Commission Minutes of Apri I I, 1975, reporting that' the Planning Commissl,on recommends Counci I .approval of the Tot split, subject to 3 conditIons: I. Submission of grading plans for lo~s A and B. 2. Culverts be ins,t-alled under driveVlays. 3. Building Inspector to be notified that Lot B foundation must be taken down to suitable sol I. After discussion, Wingert moved, seconded by Woodburn, that the Councl I approve the lot split with contingencies recommended by the Planning Commission, except that grading plan be required for lot B only prior to issuance of BuildIng Permit. Motion carried (Wingert, Crepeau, Crichton, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; Feyereisen abstaining). (Guthmueller indicated he would agree verbal iy to pedestrian access across the western edge of his lot to Flol-al Parld. .i Dumpster Screenl~ Fredlund said screening of ~umpsters is difficult In some situations, but Is desirable for a.3sthe1ic and maintenence r'eaSons. He said screening of dumpsters is a common requirement, not unique to Arden Hi lis. (Crichton agreed to look, int9 the dumpster screening problems re letter received). . Case No. J5-=-?...I. Amended Special Use Permit - Arden Manor Fredlund explained tha~ the site plan presented with the application for an Amended Special Use Permit (Case 75-6), based on the expir- ation of the original Special Use Permit for Arden Manor ("ase no; 71-21), Is essentially the SOlme as the origlnal site plan. Fredlund said that Or'cinance 147 (Mobile Home Ordinance) has been adopted since the initial application, with which Arden Manor does not comply (Ord. 147 was passed following application for the original Special Use Permit, but prior to issuance of the Special Use PermitL Provisions of Ordinance No. 147 must be considered re this Amended Special Lse Permit. Fredlunj noted the fol lowing Planning Commission con ce rns: I. Streets and utlllti'3s are in place - lots are tied to the network of the orglnal plan. 2. Najority of lots am 4,500 sq.' ft. (Ord. requires 9,000 sq. tT. Rli" Imum. 3. LOY w:,~-;-~::; ~re 45' ':Ord. rec;uires 75' wide lots). 4. <Installation of homos does hot comply with Grd. i47, whle., requires II concrete slab 2' wider 'than mobile home, or pi i lars (8 on a 51 de) to prevent warping. (Frodlund advised that Adams has submitted standards of the [qinnesota Mobile Home Association which he follows to support homas intArd6n Manor.) 5. There is a public pBrk easement to be considered; not part of the former plan. 6. Problems stemming from residents of Arden Manor: a) no garbage disposal system b) Incomplete landscaping c) unsatisfactory snow removal -4-