CC 03-08-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . " MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Village of Arden Hills Monday, March 8,1982 - 7:30 p.m. Village Hall Call to Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Woodburn called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll Call Present - Mayor Robert Woodburn, Councilmen Maurice Johnson, Diane McAllister, Dale Hicks, Janet Hollenhorst. Absent - None. Also Present - VI I lage Planner Orlyn Miller, Treasurer Donald Lamb, Clerk AdminIstrator Charlotte McNlesh, Deputy Clerk Dorothy Zehm, Oath of Office Mayor Woodburn administered the Oath of Office of Councilman to Dale Hicks. Approval of Minutes Johnson moved, seconded by McAI lister, that the Minutes of the Council Meeting of February 22, 1982 be approved as amended. Motion carried unanimously (5-0). Business from the Floor Mr. Vernon Massey, 1675 Chatham Avenue, expressed his surprise when the strobe tower appeared; stated that If there Is a move- ment to change the tower to dual lighting, he would like to be a part of It. Massey said he cal led FAA In Chicago; FAA has no objection to dual lighting, Massey said the strobe lighting Is less expensive because It exempts the owner from painting the tower with the required orange and white bands. Massey reported that FAA actually recommends dual lighting If tower Is In a residential area; feels City can demand the dual system. Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 3/4/82 and, after discussion, requested Miller to obtain the FAA and FCC tower lighting recommendations for Council. McNlesh was requested to Invite Mr. Vaughan to attend the March 29th or AprIl 12th Council meeting to discuss and hopefully abate the tower lighting nuisance. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER Case No. 82-1. HelQht Variance for House - Rolf Oliver, Siems Court Councl I was referred to Board of Appeals report (2/28/82), Plan- ning Commission recommendations (3/3/82) and to transparencies of documentation submitted In support of the height variance request. Miller reported that the house, as proposed, meets the setback requirements; house plan has been modified In order to accommodate the steep slope and to retain existing large trees between the house and the house to the north, and to provide a lake view from the three modules. Miller noted that the non-compliance portion Is the height of the ridge portion of .odule "c" (41' proposed; 35' permitted), Mil lernoted that the base elevation of the garage Is established by the road; reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval of the height variance, the rationale being: - the portion In variance Is relatively limited. - seems a suitable resolution to the problems of a limited lot width and severe lot slope. - applicant has been extremely sensitive to minimize any impact on property to the north - property owner to north has given verbal approval of the variance requested.