My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-15-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 10-15-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:43 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:37:00 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.
/
52
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 />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 6 <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if McKinley Companies was the owner of the property. Mr. <br />Cronin replied he believed McKinley Companies had a Purchase Agreement. . <br /> <br />Chair Baker stated the best solution would be to approach the resident to the south for the <br />additional 13 feet, which would make two conforming lots. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson moved, seconded by Commissioner Sand, to recommend denial <br />of Planning Case #01-26, McKinley Companies, 4420 Hamline Avenue North, Minor <br />SubdivisionIV ariance of lot width, as required by their site plan, for the following reasons <br />and the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. There is no hardship in the continued use of this parcel as a single residence and <br />the present single family uses of this large parcel continues to be the reasonable <br />development of this legacy parcel. <br /> <br />2. If the requested variance were granted, it would eliminate the opportunity for the <br />adjacent similarly sited and conditioned legacy parcels to redevelop and intensify <br />without significant variances from the requirements of the Code. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />If the redevelopment and intensification of the parcel at 4420 Hamline is to occur, <br />it should occur in conjunction with the adjoining properties at 4408 Hamline and <br />4440 Hamline to permit an innovative and more conforming resolution of the <br />vestigial conditions that are the legacy of each parcel. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Absent the requested variance the proposed subdivision does not comply with the <br />minimum requirements of the Code and therefore cannot be approved. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, September 24,2001, regular meeting of the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />CASE #01-24 - T.J. Food Ventures (Perkins). 3855 N. Lexinl!ton Avenue - Discussion <br /> <br />Staff reviewed their report dated August 28, 2001 and recommended approval of the site <br />plan for Case #01-24 for the reasons contained therein noting that applicant was in <br />compliance with the major issues. <br /> <br />Chair Baker asked if staff had concerns regarding the parking and landscaping <br />requirement, why did they not make this a part of the application. Mr. Cronin stated they <br />probably would not be able to meet these requirements. They were dealing with a non- <br />conforming site that was expanding. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson stated he did not believe they were nonconforming with respect <br />to the parking and asked that this be calculated. He also requested the landscaping be <br />calculated. Mr. Cronin suggested postponing this until next month so staff could . <br />calculate these requested figures. <br /> <br />Commissioner Erickson stated nothing was materially changed with the parking or <br />landscaping and asked if this was being brought up due to the expansion. Mr. Cronin <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.