Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />. <br />.e <br />. <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.- <br />. <br /> <br />,ARDEN HIT T S CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 27. 1995 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />MOTION: Keim moved and Hicks seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as <br />presented, and authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. <br />The motion carried "nanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />Acting Mayor Malone invited the audience to address Council with any matters of concern <br />during this portion of the meeting. No one stepped forward at this time. <br /> <br />UNFINISHFn AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE 95.2: CHESTNUT LOT SPLIT IV ARIANCE <br /> <br />City Administrator Fritsinger briefly reviewed the planning case. He indicated the applicant <br />originally requested a 75 foot lakeshore setback variance and lot split to develop two lots on <br />Lexington Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger indicated the Commission originally tabled this request to confirm the <br />approximate location of the building pads. He noted after reviewing revised plans showing the <br />building pads the Commission approved a lot split at 4365 Lexington Avenue and a 75 foot OHW <br />lakeshore setback variance for both lot A and Bat 4365 Lexington Avenue for primary buildings <br />and including any additions or extensions such as decks or porches. <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger indicated the stated condition of a shared driveway should be included in the <br />motion. <br /> <br />MOTION: Hicks moved and Keim seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 95-2, <br />Chestnut Lot SplitlVariance for primary buildings and including any additions or <br />extensions such as decks, or porches. And a shared driveway be established <br />between the two lots. The motion passed unanimously. (4-0). <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE 95.5. OGREN CONCEPT PUD <br /> <br />City Admini<trator indicated this information is for informal discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fritsinger indicated the applicant requested a concept review of a PUD for the Northwest <br />comer of Old Highway 10 and County Road E-2. This concept was for the development of an <br />18 unit townhome subdivision. <br />Mr. Fritsinger indicated the setbacks proposed meet all requirements and the proposed units <br />actually preserve more trees and natural beauty than a single family development would. <br />