CC 07-29-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I .. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I. I I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 29. 1996 6 G. Planning Case #96-08, Ramsey County/Albjerg Minor Subdivision, 1680 Oak Avenue Mr Ringwald advised that Leroy and Bernice Albjerg are requesting approval of a preliminary minor subdivision (land swap) on a 1.32 acre parcel zoned R-1 Single Family Residential District, The Albjerg property contains an existing single family home which is serviced by an easement off Oak A venue, The northwest corner of the Albjerg home and a portion of their driveway turnaround currently encroaches onto Tony Schmidt Park, The Albjergs and Ramsey County have negotiated an arrangement whereby the Albjergs can correct these encroachments through a land swap (one acre for one acre), He noted this will also provide proper setbacks for the home, The Planning Commission recommends, on a unanimous vote, approval of the Oakridge Preliminary Plat subject to the recording of the access easements (Easements A and B) and release ofthe existing access easement. In response to Acting Mayor Aplikowski, Mr, Ringwald explained this recommended action is actually the result oflitigation between Ramsey County and the Albjergs due to an encroachment onto Ramsey County parkland by the applicant. MOTION: Hicks moved and Keim seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #96-08, Ramsey County/Albjerg Minor Subdivision, 1680 Oak Avenue, subject to recording of the access easements (Easements A and B) and release of the existing access easement. Motion carried unanimously (4-0), H. Planning Case #96-11, Michael Welsh, Administrative Appeal Mr. Ringwald advised that Michael Welsh is appealing an administrative order to modify an existing fence so it complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, He explained that in April of 1996, the City received a complaint regarding the fence located at 1509 Colleen Avenue that it was not 30 percent open for air flow and that the finished side of the fence was not facing out, as required by City Code, Staff investigation confirmed that the fence was in violation of City Code, Sections VI, E, 4, c and f. Mr. Welsh was provided with written notification that his fence was not in compliance with requirements of the City Code and allowing 60 days to modify it, Mr. Ringwald explained the modifications that could make the fence conforming are that every other board be removed from the inside of the fence and placed on the outside of the fence, On June 12, 1996, the City received an appeal to the administrative order to modify the fence, The Planning Commission recommends, on a unanimous vote, approval of Planning Case 96-11, administrative appeal for fencing, based on unusual circumstances (City Code Section VI, E, 4n) as follows: