Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 1-14-91 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council1nember Hansen questioned if the proposed location <br />of the new home will infringe on the sight line of <br />adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Bergly advised the sight line will not be affected from the adjacent properties <br />since the new home will be placed in approx:iJnately the same location as the <br />existing residence. <br /> <br />CASE #90-15 (Oont'd) <br /> <br />'!he Planner explained the Commission had discussion regarding the cantilever <br />portion of the home as a permitted encroachment into the side yard setback. He <br />advised the Zoning Administrator deemed the cantilever portion of the home as <br />meeting the intent of the zoning code provision regulating permitted <br />encroachments, based on the fact that it does not change the building footprint <br />and projects only two feet into the required setback, rather than three feet as <br />permitted. He further advised the applicants discussed adjusting the wilding <br />plans to eli1ninate this portion of the home and slightly adjusting the plan on <br />the site to meet the required 10 ft. side yard setback. <br /> <br />Oouncil1nember Malone disagreed that the cantilever portion of the home meets the <br />intent of the code provision and stated his preference that the applicant adjust <br />the plan to meet the setback re:pirement. <br /> <br />Malone questioned the location of the utilities on the property and if sufficient <br />access is provided along the south property line for maintenance of the <br />utilities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Duane and Margaret Lilla, applicants, stated the southerly property line will be <br />kept clear f= maintenance of the utilities, as well as to provide access to the <br />lake. '!he applicants advised they have changed the floor plan of the home to <br />eli1ninate the cantilever portion and will adjust the entire building plan to meet <br />the 10 ft. side yard setback requirement. <br /> <br />Mahowald moved, seconded by Growe, to approve Case <br />#90-15, for a five (5) ft. front yard setback variance for a garage at 3294 Lake <br />Johanna Boulevard, Duane and Margaret Lilla, based on the findings as listed in <br />the Planner's report dated 1-9-91 and recommended by the Planning Commission at <br />their meeting held 1-9-91. Motion carried unanllnously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Oouncil1nember Hansen questioned if the applicants own a vehicle parked on the <br />boulevard at 3294 Lake Johanna Boulevard and re:pested it be removed. <br /> <br />Duane Lilla advised they have not purchased the property to date and do not own <br />the vehicle. <br /> <br />CASE #90-17; <br />MINOR SUBDIV., <br />1245 NURSERY HILL <br />EIBENSI'EINER <br /> <br />Planner Bergly explained the Planning Commission had <br />recommended approval of a Minor Sill:rlivision at 1245 <br />Nursery Hill court, at their regular meeting of 12-5-90, <br />and one of the conditions of approval was inadvertently <br />omitted from the minutes sent to council. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Bergly stated a "friendly" amendment to the motion was accepted and condition #4: <br />"No variances be re:pested for construction of residences on either parcel" was <br />included in the Commission motion. He noted that a wilding permit has been <br />issued for the lot which did not have an existing residence and no variances were <br />requested. <br />