CC 04-09-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 4-9-90 Page 6 CASE #90-02 (Cont'd) The applicant advised the sign displays the standard Group Health Clinic "logo" and the variance is requested in order to maintain client recognition. Malone lOOVed, secorxled by Mahowald, that Council approve the Sign length Variance, Case #90-02, as requested for the street sign located on Northwocxls Drive, contingent \llX>n the sign not ex"""""'" ; 119' 100 square feet and based on the the following rationale: '!he sign meets the spirit of the Ordinance and does not exceed the minimum sign area or height requirements and meets the sign setback requirement. Motion =ied unanimously. (3-0) CASE #90-03; FRONT SEI'BACK VARIANCE, 3464 SIEMS COURT, KUDAK & FlEW COUncil was refexred to the Planner's report and Planning Cormnission minutes dated 4-4-90 and Board of Appeals Minutes dated 3-24-90, regarding the application for a front setback variance, 3464 siems Court, Kudak & Field. '!he Planner explained the request is to accornmcdate a two-car garage on the site and he refe=ed Council to a diagram of the proposed garage placement. He noted a survey of the adjacent lots determined the average front yard setback in this neighborhood to be 30 feet. Bergly stated the applicant has been working with an architect to fird alternate solutions for garage placement, however, due to the limited building envelope and topcgraphy of the lot the garage placement is extremely difficult without some type of variance. '!he Planner advised the Board of Appeals and Planning Conunission reconunended denial of the variance based on the negative sight-line bnpact of the garage placement on the adjacent properties and preference of Ixlth b:x:1ies not to set a precedent with such a dramatic setback variance. Bergly reviewed an alternative plan for the garage placement which would require a 20 ft. setback (a 10 ft. variance). '!he Planner briefly des=ibed the residents concerns, as noted in Planning minutes. After discussion Council concurred that the requested variance is extreme and will negatively bnpact this area. CouncilInernbers expressed sympathy for the applicant working within the building envelope constraints and suggested an attempt be made toward placement of the garage at a location which is lTIOre in line with =ent zoning standards. Malone lllOVed, secorxled by Mahowald, to deny the Front Setback Variance application, Case #90-03, resed on the following: 1. '!here is not an identifiable hardship, 2. Granting the variance will set precedent and unduly shorten the front setbacks generally established in this area, and, 3. Placement of the garage at this location will infringe on adjacent properties site-lines. Motion =ied unanimously. (3-0) CASE #90-04; SIGN RELOCATION, 1203 W. CO. RD. E, CARROLL'S FURNITURE Council was referred to the Planner's rep:>rt and Planning minutes of 4-9-90, relative to the request for relocation of the sign at Carroll's Furniture, 1203 W. County Road E.