My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 01-09-1984
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CC 01-09-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:36 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:09:06 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.
/
9
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 />. <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />January 9, 1984 <br />P age two <br /> <br />Lynden was requested to submit his recommendations for Plsnning <br />Commission and Council consideration. <br /> <br />Steven Hagen Application for Building Permit <br />Letter of 1/5784 was referred to Lynden for his reply to <br />Richard Leland Brooks, representing Mr. Steven Hagen. <br /> <br />Status Report - Meeting with George Reiling re Royal Hilla North <br />Preliminary Plat <br />Woodburn reported that he met with George Reiling and Marcel <br />Eibensteiner relative to the proposed extension of Arden View Drive, <br />~ of which is proposed on the Reiling property and ~ within the . <br />Royal Hills North plat. <br /> <br />Proposal, as discussed, was that a row of lots on the Reiling <br />property, and the north ~ of the road be incorporated in the Royal <br />Bills North plat: these lots to be owned by Reiling, and sold for <br />him by Eibensteiner: assessments for street and utilites to be <br />spread on lots on both sides of the street. Woodburn reported <br />that Eibensteiner will work on the plat to include a row of lots <br />north of the road, which will not spoil future platting of the <br />balance of the Reiling parcel. <br /> <br />REPORt OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER (absent) <br />15"jl" <br />Case No. 83-28, Variances for Garage Addition. ~ Edgewater Ave. <br />Councilman Hicks di.p~ayed a transparency of area map, indicating <br />the Carlson house and proposed garage addition. Hicks noted that <br />2 variances are proposed, a 4' sideyard variance (6' from property <br />line) and a 16.5' front setback vari.ance (23.5' from front property <br />11ne) . <br /> <br />Hicks noted the location of the house to the ~ast, which is built <br />up to, or very near, the adjacent property line, but at a lower <br />elevation. Hicks noted that the Carlson and neighboring driveways <br />parallel this common property line: separated by'a retaining wall: <br />noted that the neighboring lot also has a drivewsy to Ridgewood <br />Road. <br /> <br />Hicks noted that there. is an approximate grade change, between the <br />road and Carlson garage of 12':t, as it. exists : reported .that the <br />Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend approval of the <br />variances as requested, based on the topography of thll land and <br />improvement of traffic safety on Edgewater Avenue. <br /> <br />In discussion, Carlson explained that the proposed garage will <br />face the northwe.st. Driveway. will be relocated to the northwest, <br />away from the east property line; noted that .the existing driveway <br />is virtually impossible to traverse: noted that the proposed garage <br />will be at a 3' - 4' lower elevation, with a longer run, and, <br />therefore, not at as steep a grade. <br /> <br />Carlson said he has aigned statements from neighbors to the west <br />and north, spproving the proposed garage addition; reported that <br />his neighbor to the east has not given approval because the garage, <br />as proposed, will block his view to the northwest (not a lake view). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council grsnt the 4' <br />sideyard variance and the 16.5' front setback vsrisnce as ~resented, <br />on the basis of the land topography. <br /> <br />In further discussion, it was noted that the variances are really <br />encroachments by corners of the garage, as it is angled. It was <br />further noted that the topography and narrow lot width are problem <br />conditions purchased by the owner, which he now desires to minimize. <br />Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.