CCP 05-11-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 5-6-92 . Page 2 CASE #92-05 (Oont'd) The Planner concluded to recormnend denial of the variance and reviewed two options that may be considered by the applicant: 1. Entering an agreement with the City that allows the porch to remain, wt indemnifies the City if damage occurs during maintenance of the utilities. 2. Removing the porch from en=oachment on the easement. Bergly explained the full width of the easement is needed to allow f= trenching that may be required during maintenance of the utility, therefore, the easement should not be vacated. He further stated that if the applicant was agreeable to indemnify the city, the agreement should be drafted or reviewed by the city Attorney and should protect the City from costs resulting from damage to the porch, its footings, or for unusual techniques used to protect the porch. Two neighbors indicated either verbally to staff or in writing that they had no opposition to the variance, Donald Kelly, 1181 Karth Lake Drive and Don Dean, 1163 Karth Lake Drive. , Member M03raw questioned if option #1, entering an agreement with the City that allows the porch to remain, would clear title on the property for the applicant. Planner Bergly stated he did not believe such action would clear the title. He . advised the applicant may be able to receive title insurance for that portion of the residence which does not en=oach on the easement with such a document. Clay Larson, applicant, was present and stated the deck was constructed without a wilding permit issued and was existing when the sellers of the property took possession of the home. He stated he is not willing to indemnify the City and preferred vacation of the easement, as requested. Larson also explained the seller has escrowed funds for removal of the porch and title insurance has been granted for the main portion of the residence. He expressed his displeasure that a building permit was issued for the s=een porch without mention of the easement. Chair Probst carrnnented that it would be inappropriate for the city to assume liability by granting a variance for the en=oachment and he did not favor such action. M03raw moved, seconded by Er'ickson, that Commission recormnend to Carmcil denial of Case #92-15, Variance to allow a structure in a drainage and utility easement Clayton Larson, 1173 Karth Lake Drive. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Clayton Larson questioned if the fact that he was lli1Willing to grant the indemnification was a contributing factor to the recormnendation for denial of the variance. .