Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 14, 1984 <br />Page Five <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />landscaping as amended), subject to: <br /> <br />1. Administrative review of parking needs of tenant(s) <br />prior to issuance of building permit(s) for interior <br />finishing of tenant's space within the building. <br /> <br />2. Approval of drainage plan by City Engineer and RCWD. <br /> <br />3. Resolution of park dedication prior to issuance of <br />occupancy permit. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Case No. 84-14, Sideyard Setback Variance and Lot Splits and <br />Consolidation, Hohn and Laska, 1113 Amble Drive and 4408 Amble <br />Circle <br />Council was referred to a transparency of the three subject lots, <br />indicating the splits and consolidations proposed in order to <br />correct the two foot substandard setback of the house on lot 3, <br />which was not found until the house was substantially complete. <br />Miller reported that the Board of Appeals recommends approval of <br />the proposal as presented; reported that the Planning Commission <br />also recommends approval of the proposal, with the adjustment of <br />t~e lot line on lot 1 as recommended in the Planning memo (4-26-84). <br /> <br />Mr. Hohn explained his plans for the rear yard of his home on lot <br />2, which have been disrupted because of the encroachment of the <br />house on lot 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Laska reported that strings have been placed along the pro- <br />posed adjusted lot line between lots 2 and 3, and along the <br />"recommended" adjusted line between lot 1 and lot 3 (Planning <br />memo); noted that the "recommended" line looks the best. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Rauenhorst, that Council approve the <br />8' sideyard setback on Lot 3, Block 1, Karth Lake Hills, adjusting <br />the lot line between Lots 2 and 3 as proposed (Case No. 84-14) <br />and adjusting the lot line between Lot 1 and 3 as recommended in <br />Planning memo (4-26-84). Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Zoning Ordinance Interpretation - Sports Injury Clinic, Arden <br />Hills Club <br />Council was referred to memo from Zoning Administrator Dorothy <br />Zehm, requesting Council's interpretation of the Zoning <br />Ordinance as it relates to a proposed sports clinic in the Arden <br />Hills Club (5-9-84). <br /> <br />Dr. Raymond Hendrickson explained that 98% of patients are Club <br />members; noted that he has been operating the sports clinic in the <br />Club for about a year; noted that it is about a half-time job now; <br />wants to work it into a full-time jOb and open the clinic to non- <br />members of the Club. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In discussion, it was queried why the ordinance does not permit <br />medical offices in industrial districts. Miller explained that <br />personal services and clinics have historically been considered <br />to have more retail orientation than normal offices, creating <br />more retail intensity, and requiring more parking, Miller <br />suggested that who Dr. Hendrickson is serving is probably the <br />deciding factor as to whether or not the proposed clinic is <br />ancillary to the Club's operation; suggested it could conceivably <br />be considered ancillary if for private membership; if open to <br />anyone, a separate use, and not accessory. <br /> <br />In discussion, Miller noted that the existing liquor lounge and <br />sports shop, within the Club, are open to the public; noted that <br />"restaurants" are permitted in industrial districts with a Special <br />Use Permit, retail sales are not. <br />