CC 06-26-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, June 26, 1989 Page 4 CASE #89-06 VAR, 3220 NO. HAMLINE, THOMAS LYNCH Council was referred to Planner Bergly's report of 6-7-89 and the Planning Commission minutes of 6-7-89, relative to the request for two variances at 3220 North Hamline Avenue, Thomas Lynch. . Planner Bergly stated the applicant is requesting a variance from lakeshore and sideyard setback requirements. He noted the 75 ft. lakeshore setback requirement is mandated by the State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Bergly explained the two previous variances granted for the property; lot area variance granted in conjunction with a lot split and a sideyard variance to accommodate a patio. The Planner stated the Planning Commission determined there was no justifiable hardship related to the two requested variances and recommended denial of both requests. Thomas Lynch, 3220 North Hamline, explained the variance for the patio was due to the fact the city had no definition for patios at the time it was installed. He noted the house was constructed 80 ft. from the lake; no other homes in his area meet the 75 ft. required setback. Lynch also advised his adjacent neighbors have not expressed any concerns relative to either variance. Councilmember Malone noted the unusual lot dimensions and that the homes are close together; expressed concern that future neighbors may object to the close proximity of the homes. He did not favor granting a variance without any identifiable hardship. . Malone moved, seconded by Growe, that Council deny Case #89-06, application for an 8 ft. sideyard setback variance and a 5 ft. lakeshore setback variance" 3220 North Hamline Avenue, Thomas Lynch, based on lack of identifiable hardship. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) CASE #89-07; SUP ANTENNA, 8 PINE TREE DR., FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Council was referred to the planner's report and Planning Commission minutes dated 6-7-89, relative to the special use permit request by Farmers Insurance Group, 8 Pine Tree Drive, for a satellite dish antenna. Planner Bergly stated Council had granted a temporary SUP for this antenna installation; a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission meeting and this item is returned to Council for formal action. Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested variance based on the fact it is not visible from nearby residences or businesses and it is less obtrusive than rooftop mechanical equipment. Hansen moved, seconded by Growe, that Council approval Case #89-07, Special Use Permit for a Satellite Dish, 8 Pine Tree Drive, Farmers Insurance Group. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) Councilmember Malone questioned if screening is required for rooftop mechanical equipment; if so, should the city require dish antennae be screened. . Planner Bergly advised the staff has reviewed the matter; there is no provision for screening of antennae currently in the ordinance. He has worked with the individual applicants on placement of antennae; in this case the dish was installed behind the mechanical equipment on the roof for screening purposes. Malone suggested the Planner and staff review and recommend a screening provision relating to satellite antenna into the ordinance.