Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 27.1998 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Malone seconded a <br />motion to approve Planning Case #98-10, the SUP amendment to add a PCS <br />telephone array to the Vaughan tower, subject to compliance with the <br />recommendation of the engineering report, compliance with the two conditions <br />indicated above and set forth in Staff memorandum, dated April 1 , 1998, <br />verification there is no rust on the tower structure, and providing a double brace <br />support. <br /> <br />2. Case #98-11, Thomas Torgerson, Lot SpIitNariances, Emerald Inn, 1125 <br />Red Fox Road <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald explained that applicant is requesting approval of a lot split and variance for <br />signage to retain an existing sign which would not be on a separate parcel off-premises sign, on a <br />2.76 acre parcel zoned B-3 Service Business District. <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald explained that Emerald Inn was approved as part of Planning Case #80-34. The <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of this case on August 15, 1980. The City <br />Council approved this case on September 29, 1980. The current owner of the Emerald Inn, <br />George Reiling, wishes to sell the Emerald Inn to Forstrom and Torgerson Partnership and retain <br />the northerly undeveloped portion ofthis property. <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald stated the Planning Commission, in Planning Case #98-11, recommended denial <br />of the rear setback variance, parking lot, where one foot is provided but five feet is required, <br />based on the Rear Yard Setback Variance section of the Staff report dated April 1, 1998. <br />Howevcr, Emerald Inn moved its property line 5 feet to the north, thereby meeting the rear lot <br />setback requiremcnt of 5 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald statcd the Planning Commission, in Planning Case #98-11, recommended <br />approval of a variance for the existing shared off-premises sign, based on the Findings-Variance <br />scction of thc Staff report dated April 1, 1998, and conditioned on the following: <br /> <br />1. The size of any pylon sign is limited to 100 square feet in area per face. <br />2. Prohibition of a second pylon sign. <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald stated that Planning Commission, in Planning Case #98-11, recommended <br />approval of the lot split, conditioned on the following: <br /> <br />1. Provision of a five foot setback on thc north edge of the Southerly parce1. <br />2. Provision of the necessary cross vehicular access easement, in a form acceptable <br />to the City Attorncy, to be recorded with the lot split. <br />3. Provision of the necessary drainage and utility easements, in a form acceptable to <br />the City Attorney, to be recorded with the lot split. <br />4. Payment of the necessary park dedication fee, if not yet paid. <br />