PCP 03-01-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 1,2006 8 Commissioner Thompson stated with respect to the hardship issue, she did not see there was an adequate hardship based on the requirements. She noted the house and lot were . there and it was purchased as it was. She believed this would also disturb the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he was concerned about granting the variance because even though there was a 21-foot drainage easement, a significant portion of that would be covered by the driveway of the new house, so to say there would be no construction on the easement was not a true statement. Commissioner McClw1g stated in looking through the findings that they would need to find in order to grant the variance, he could not make that finding, so he would have to oppose a variance in the case. Chair Sand if they were to deny this they would need to find findings to support the denial. Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to deny Planning Case No, 06-002, Gary Findell, 1401 Skiles Lane, Minor Subdivision based on the following findings: This is based on the variance and house being moved to account for that variance. In regard to public welfare, it is considered detrimental to the adjacent tracks in the area in which the subdivision would be located. With respect to the zoning compliance, the parcels of tracks resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the surveyor registered land survey, shall not have an area, dimension or setbacks, . which are less than the minimum requirements. The motion carried (6-1 - Commissioner Modesette opposed). Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Larson to deny Planning Case No. 06-002, Gary Findell, 1401 Skiles Lane, Variance based on the following findings: The variance fails to show a hardship and it is not in character with the neighborhood. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). C. PLANNING CASE 06-003: CELESTICA: 4300 ROUND LAKE ROAD; SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT Mr. Lehnhoffstated applicant was requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) Amendment to Planning Case #96-12 to allow for a site plan modification that would allow the installation of two exterior make-up air handling units. Staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit Amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval listed in Special Use Permit #96-12, 97-23, 00-40, 01-08, 02-33, and any other approved permits. (Permits 01-12a and 01-12b have expired and do not apply). . 2. The applicant shall be required to obtain all necessary building permits before construction bcgins. 8