Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />May 11, 1992 <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by MaIone 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 /> <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 /> <br />!'UBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />There were no public comments. <br /> <br />~NfINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br /><:::hs.lL.H.f.~05 - VARIANCE REOU~_S_T. <br />1173 KARTH LAKE DRIVE <br /> <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 /> <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 include a deck. There is no record <br />of a building permit ever being issued allowing <br />construction of a deck. In April 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 />