CC 06-24-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . .e . . . . . . .. . . . I . . . .e . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 24. 1996 7 C. Resolution #96-26, Approving Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Action Plan for 1996 Mr. Ringwald explained the City is required, under the Metropolitan Liveable Communities Act, to prepare an action plan to met the established housing goals which were negotiated in 1995 with the Metropolitan Council. Staff continues to support the premise that Arden Hills' goals and action plan should be directly linked to the future redevelopment ofTCAAP. Councilmember Aplikowski questioned the impact without TCAAP. Mr. Ringwald explained it would be more dit1icult and staff would have to determine how affordable housing goals can be met on a lot-by-lot basis. He suggested this is why the Met Council endorsed the use of TCAAP, to assure meaningful implementation of the Liveable Communities Act. Mayor Probst noted that because ofTCAAP, under the current definition, Arden Hills is classified as a "developing community". Mr. Ringwald stated this is correct. Councilmember Aplikowski asserted that this is a "heavy handed" requirement and in theory she is opposed but in reality she will support it. MOTION: Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #96-26, Approving the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Action Plan for 1996. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). D. Resolution #96-06, Tousley Front Yard Variance, 3248 Sandeen Road Mr. Ringwald explained that Herb Tousley of 3248 Sandeen Road is requesting a front and side yard variance. The front yard setback being requested is 35 feet, when 40 feet is required and the side yard setback being requested varies from approximately 2.7 feet to 4 feet, when 5 feet is required_ It was noted the Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the variance requests with the following conditions: 1. If the building is damaged or destroyed by any cause in excess of fifty percent (50%) of the fair market value of said building, as determined by the building inspector, then the side yard (north property line) setback variance as explicitly shown would become null and void, and 2. City Council consideration of the proposed site plan, including the exterior elevations of the proposed addition.