My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 03-27-2006
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
CCP 03-27-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:21:26 PM
Creation date
11/15/2006 10:09:43 AM
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.
/
58
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 CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 13, 2006 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />ITlJunous to adjacent properties, Parcel B does fail to meet the full mlmmUlll . <br />requirements ofthe R-2 Zone_ <br />4_ The applieant has met all other applicable requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. <br />The proposed lots have aeeess to a publie road, have adequate buildable areas, and <br />meet the requirements of the R-2 Zone. <br />5. All required application fees have been paid_ This subdivision does result in the <br />creation of one new residential lot Under Section 1130_08 of the Subdivision <br />Ordinance, the park dedication fee would apply to this case. The Recreation and <br />Conservation portion (Subd. 2) requires that all subdivisions dedicate a portion of <br />their land lor recreation and conservation purposes or, as deemed comparable value <br />by the City Council, pay a park dedication fee in place of a land dedication. <br /> <br />He noted staff had not received any letters or telephone calls from property owners or occupants <br />in regard to this planning case_ <br /> <br />Richard Kotoski, Roseville, stated they wanted to take down the two structures that were on the <br />property and put in two single-family homes. He indicated he could put in a twin home on this <br />site, which would meet the City's requirements, but his preference would be to put in two singlc- <br />family homes that would fit into the neighborhood_ He believed this proposal would be a good <br />use for that corner. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski askcd if Mr. Kotoski would put in a twin home if the two single-family <br />homes were not permitted_ Mr. Kotoski responded that was correct . <br /> <br />Council member Holden stated thc Planning Commission had done a good job in their analysis <br />and she was not in favor of supporting this proposal at this time. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Larson seconded a <br />motion to deny Planning Case 06-006, Minor Subdivision and Variance, <br />Richard Kotoski, 2105 Thorn Drive_ The motion carried unanimously (5- <br />0)_ <br /> <br />B. Plannin!! Case No. 06-006: Variance: Westlund. 3552 Lake Johanna Blvd. <br /> <br />Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant is seeking two variances for a .28 acre property at 3352 Lake <br />Johanna Boulevard, which is on the southwestern side of Lake Johanna_ The property is <br />approximately 223 feet long at the northern lot line, 213 feet long at the southern lot line, and is <br />50 feet wide_ The Shoreland Management Ordinance, which supersedes the underlying R-2 <br />Zone, requires a minimum lot width at the Ordinary High Water (OWH) mark of75 feet. <br /> <br />He reviewed his analysis and indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the variances <br />separately since one is not contingent upon the other. The Planning Commission is <br />recommending approval of the variance to construct an addition to the principal structure (PC# <br />06-006a), subject to conditions as noted in staffs report; however, the Planning Commission <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.