CCP 02-27-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - February 13, 2006 3 . He indicated the Planning Commission at their February 1, 2006 regular meeting voted 4-3 to recommend approval of the variance request subject to three conditions as noted in his report. He recommended Council approve Planning Case 05-21, 1479 Arden Place, Variance, subject to the three conditions of approval as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 rcport. Garfield Kachel, 1479 Arden Place, thanked Council for their patience. Councilmembe.' Holden asked how much of the addition would not be in the setback area. Mr. Lehnhoff responded all of the addition would be in the setback. He noted a small portion of the existing structurc was also currently in the setback. Councilmember Holden asked why the vote was so close at the Plmming Commission meeting. Mr. Lchnhoff responded some of the Planning Commissioners were concerned that this did not meet the hardship criteria. Mayor Aplikowski noted the Commissioners did not have the ncw drawings at their meeting. Councilmember Grant requested an explanation of the foundation issue the Plauning Commissioners discussed. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the Commissioners did discuss this and recommended that the entire structure be on a permanent foundation as requircd by ordinance. . MOTION: Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve Plm1l1ing Case 05-21, 1479 Arden Place Variance, subject to the three conditions of approval as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 report. Thc motion canied unanimously (4-0). C. Planninl! Case #006-001: Dennis & Ann Claridl!e. 4038 Valentine Court - Minor Subdivision Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicants own a 2.37 acre property at 4038 Valentine Court that was consolidated under one tax identification number from an original three platted lots. The applicant is requesting that the property be subdivided back into three properties with one modification to the original plat that would shift the proposed lot line between lot A and lot B ten fcct to thc south. He indicated the proposed lot sizes and configurations meet all requirements of the underlying R -1 Zone. He noted the Planning Commission at their regular February 1, 2006 meeting unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision subject to six conditions as noted in staffs February 6, 2006 report. Councilmembcr Grant stated because only two of the lots were new, the park dcdication fee should not count against the cxisting lot and he would be in favor of collecting a park dedication . fee on the two new lots only. He noted the Planning Commission did not have the latitude to