My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 05-10-1982
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1982
>
CC 05-10-1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:20 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 2:38:41 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.
/
7
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 />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> <br />May 10, 1982 <br /> <br />Approval recognizes a blanket 5' aggrega~k variance on <br />Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Block 2 and Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block I, provid- <br />!ng for a minimum separation of 20 feet between houses. Motion <br />carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />Case No. 82-4, Special Use Permit for Duplex - 1963 West County <br />Road E2,Lendrum MacEachron <br />Council was referred to a transparency of the lot which is nearly <br />73,000 square feet in area surrounded on 3 sides by Ramsey County <br />Open Space and on the east by the Ramsey County public library <br />property. Miller explained that the applicants propose to convert <br />the existing two-story house into a two-family dwelling. Miller <br />reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a <br />~ . Special Use Permit for the two-family use with two conditions: <br /> <br />1. A well defined parking area be provided <br />for at least six cars directly north of the <br />house and <br />2, The access drive shall be improved and surfaced <br />to accommodate all weather access. <br /> <br />In review of the Unit 2 modification, it was noted that a second <br />stairwell exists between the bedroom and dining room, which will <br />remain for use as an emergency exit from the hallway. It was re- <br />ported by the applicant that they have contracted to have 75 tons <br />of crushed rock placed on the driveway. <br /> <br />McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve a Special <br />Use Permit for the proposed two-family dwelling at 1963 West Cty. <br />Rosd E2. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />Case No. 82-7, Variance for Garage - 1934 Edgewater Avenue <br />Council was referred to a transparency of the Bohnen lot indicat- <br />ing the location of the existing house and proposed garage, as <br />well as existing houses and garages in the area. <br /> <br />Miller noted that the Zoning ordinance permits the principle . <br />structure to conform to the prevailing setback in the immediate <br />vicinity, but does not speak to accessory structures; consequently, <br />a 29,5' setback variance is requested for the new two-car garage <br />to be sited in line with the house 10.5' from the Prior Ave. right- <br />of-way. <br /> <br />Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission <br />recommend approval of the setback variance based upon hardships <br />and conditions listed in their respective reports. <br /> <br />After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council <br />approve the 29.5' sideyard setback variance (corner lot) aa re- <br />quested, based on the following hardships and considerations: <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />1. Conformance would drastically reduce utility of the <br />applicant's rear yard. <br />2. Proposed garage location conforms to other atructures <br />in the neighborhood. <br />3. Detrimental visual and utility impact is minimal. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />Case No. 82-8, Building Permit for Storage Building 1296 West <br />County Road F, Midwestern Relay Company <br />Council was referred to a transparency of the Midwestern Relay <br />Company aite on County Road F., indicating the tower location, <br />and the proposed 10' x 16' storage building location, within the <br />fenced area under the tower. <br /> <br />Miller explained that the Zoning Adminiatrator reasoned that the <br />propoaed building doea not repreaent an expansion of the use or a <br />aignificant change to the site so an application to amend the <br />, <br />existing Special Use Permit was not required; the application, con- <br />sequently, is for approval of a building permit for the storage <br />building. <br /> <br />-3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.