Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - <br />Arden Hill s Council 2 May 11, 1992. <br />CONSENT CALENDAR <br />MOTION: Hicks moved, seconded by Malone to approve the Consent <br /> Calendar, with the exception of item 4b, and authorize <br /> execution of all necessary documents contained therein. <br /> Motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> a. Award Contract for the 1992 Bike Trail Improvement <br /> Project <br /> b. (This item moved to "Unfinished and New Business") <br /> c. Approve Solicitation Request from Minnesota Public <br /> Interest Research Group (MPIRG) <br /> d. Approve List of Claims/Payroll <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />There were no public comments. <br />UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br />CASE #92-05 - VARIANCE REQUEST <br />1173 KARTH LAKE DRIVE <br />City Planner John Bergly offered the following background . <br />with regard to an application from Clayton Larson, 1173 <br />Karth Lake Drive for a variance: <br />- The home at 1173 Karth Lane was built with a building <br /> permit issued in September 1979. plans submitted at <br /> that time did not incl ude a deck. There is no record <br /> of a building permit ever being issued allowing <br /> construction of a deck. In Apri 1 1982 a building <br /> permit was issued to construct a screen porch over an <br /> existing deck. A wooden screen porch, held up by wood <br /> pillars, was built and fastened to the house. <br />- Recently, the applicant, Clayton Larson, purchased the <br /> property and learned during closing that the screen <br /> porch encroaches upon a utility easement about 6.5 feet <br /> which means the porch is only 3.5 feet from a City <br /> watermain. <br />- Building within a utility easement is prohibited. <br />- Clayton Larson cannot obtain title insurance or clear <br /> title to the property given the screen porch location. <br /> Therefore, he has requested either a variance to allow <br /> the porch to remain as is within the utility easement, <br /> or an easement vacation. <br />- Staff and Planning Commission have reviewed the case <br /> concluding that granting a variance or vacating the . <br /> easement is inappropriate; there are two options: <br /> 1) The City and Mr. Larson enter into an agreement <br /> that allows the porch to remain but indemnifies <br /> the City in order to protect the City from costs <br />