CC 04-08-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . .- . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . .- . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1996 5 based on the property's steep topography and prevailing front yard setback on the adjacent properties, subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with the requirements of the City Code, specifically Chapter 20.5. Councilmember Malone inquired if the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) understood the maximum allowable impervious area. Mr. Ringwald stated the front yard of this property is adjacent to Sandeen Road, not Lake Johanna as the DNR letter indicates. Councilmember Malone noted the applicant owns approximately 80 percent of Lot 19, and the neighbor owns 20 percent He stated the lot's configuration is unusual, and not suitable for a lakeside lot He inquired if the lot could be subdivided and reconfigured, merging Lots 19 and 20. Mr. Ringwald stated that a consolidation could be accomplished with a Registered Land Survey (RLS). Council member Malone inquired if the manhole between Lot 20 and 21 meets current engineering standards. Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Superintendent, stated the manhole has a six percent slope, and a one percent drop in the other manhole. He stated it is not the best contiguration, but is adequate. Councilmember Hicks inquired if Lot 19 was not consolidated. He stated the building footprint will have to be confined to the sideyard setback for Lot 20. Stephen Nelson, 3280 Sandeen Road, stated the lots are on a single tax statement, and was consolidated previously. He stated,in relationship to Lot 19, that there is approximately 50 feet along the road, and 12 feet along the lake, and the remaining parts were sold to Mrs. McCloskey. Mr. Nelson stated there is minimal shoreland frontage. Councilmember Hicks stated he did not want the applicant to come before the Council in 10 years with a variance request on Lot 19. Councilmember Hicks inquired if the applicant was willing to consolidate the lots. Mr. Nelson stated it would be cost prohibitive, but he would be willing to state that he has no intention of subdividing or combining the subject lots. Councilmember Keirn verified that there was only one abstract, so the lots were already combined. Councilmember Hicks inquired what the existing structure would be used for. Mr. Nelson stated he intends to use it as it is, as rental property. He stated it may be removed in the future, but now he only wants to know the potential building area.