My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 04-10-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 04-10-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:15:50 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:22:08 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.
/
81
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 />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 27,2000 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Ms. Randall stated that at the Council's last meeting, a motion to approve this request had failed. <br />She noted the applicant was not able to attend the meeting, but did not have any additional <br />comments and wishes to pursue his original proposal. She added that City staff recommends that <br />the Council move to either approve the request or table the issue for review up to May 26. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked whether the applicant had indicated that if the rear yard variance <br />was granted, he would limit the setback to 8 feet. Ms. Randall confirmed the applicant does not <br />intend to extend the setback any closer than 8 feet. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked whether the applicant had indicated whether he might pursue <br />alternatives if the request was denied. Ms. Randall stated the applicant prefers his original <br />proposal which he believes to be the best solution. She added the applicant does not intend to <br />provide any further information. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that he had attended the Planning Commission meeting at which <br />this request was originally presented. He added the Commission had been divided, but decided <br />to deny the request due to the option of an additional kickout on one side. He noted the Planning <br />Commission had not heard the views of the applicant's neighbor who did not support the kick- <br />out option. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated the applicant's original proposal is the best solution for the <br />neighborhood and expressed her support of the variance. <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Larson stated he had originally voted against the variance, adding he is prepared to <br />change his vote. He added that if the variance request is not granted, the applicant will be forced <br />to extend to the 5-foot maximum on the sideyard, thus moving it closer to the adjacent house. <br />He expressed his support of the motion, with the condition that the structure not be built any <br />closer to the lot line than 8 feet. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch cautioned that such a condition might present legal questions. He noted he is unsure <br />that if the applicant is allowed to build up to 5 feet by ordinance, the Council's order can legally <br />supersede. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch noted that if the condition was included, that would capture the intent, but part of the <br />area in question would not be covered under the approval. Ms. Randall agreed, stating the <br />applicant would not be able to extend into the rear yard, and future modifications or additions <br />would be affected. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved, seconded by Councilmember Grant to <br />approve Planning Case #00-12, Rear Yard Variance (20 feet proposed when 30 <br />feet is required) for a garage addition based on the "Findings - Rear Yard Setback <br />Variance" as contained in the Staff report dated March 1,2000. Motion carried <br />unanimously (4-0). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.