CCP 02-10-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----- --..-- DRAFT .. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 27. 1997 8 Mr. Kruse and Mr. Brausen requested a final clarification of what additious and changes would I and would not be allowed. .. Councilmember Hicks asked how much ofthe proposed construction would ueed to be approved under a SUP and what would come under the authority of a building permit. Mr. Ringwald I clarified that a window alone would be subject to a building permit, but the window and door combiuation would require a site plan or SUP amendment. Couucilmember Hicks asked for clarification regarding signage as written in the ordinance. Mr. I Ringwald clarified that the signage would need to fall within the approved limits under the ordinance, I MOTION: Hicks moved and Keim seconded a motion to deny Planning Case #96-27, Arden Hills Texaco/QuiZllo's, 1306 West County Road E, SUP AmendmentIVariance . with the understanding that the operation of QuiZllo's would exist as an accessory use to the site within the 170 square foot "deli" area, signage on the site will be as I per the plan identifying two QuiZllo's signs on the front and west side; and the installation of a window on the west side would be permissible without amending the SUP conditioned on receipt of a building permit. I Councilmember Aplikowski asked for clarification regarding signage and installation of a window on the west side. Mr, Ringwald stated these would both be Codelbuilding permit issues. ~ Councilmember Hicks reiterated the primary use issue with regard to the requested door and patio. I Councilmember Aplikowski stated she felt this was a good compromise, but she would still be inclined to allow tables and chairs on the west side of the building in the summer months only. I Mr. Brausen stated he now puts two tables in the front of the building in the summer months, and has been doing so for some time. . The motion carried unanimously (5-0). I C. Planning Case #97-01, Gurtek, 4315 Colleen Court, Variance Mr. Ringwald reported the applicant is requesting approval of a front yard variance to facilitate I the construction of a single family home on a vacant lot in the McClung Fourth Addition (Exhibit C). The Planning Commission reviewed this recommendation and recommends that I Planning Case #97-01 be approved, allowing a 10-foot front yard setback variance for the garage without allowing for any direct encroachment into the drainage/utility easement. Mr. Ringwald stated this lot has a unique layout, and referred to an overhead of the lot and I proposed house. He stated this lot has a small buildable area due to the utility easement at the .. rear ofthe lot. I