Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8. 1996 5 <br />I based on the property's steep topography and prevailing front yard setback on the adjacent <br />I properties, subject to the following condition: <br /> 1. Compliance with the requirements of the City Code, specifically Chapter 20.5. <br />I Councilmember Malone inquired if the Department ofNatura1 Resources (DNR) understood the <br /> maximwn allowable impervious area. Mr. Ringwald stated the front yard of this property is <br />I adjacent to Sandeen Road, not Lake Johanna as the DNR letter indicates. <br /> Councilmember Malone noted the applicant owns approximately 80 percent of Lot 19, and the <br />I neighbor owns 20 percent. He stated the lot's configuration is unusual, and not suitable for a <br /> lakeside lot. He inquired if the lot could be subdivided and reconfigured, merging Lots 19 and <br /> 20. <br />I Mr. Ringwald stated that a consolidation could be accomplished with a Registered Land Survey <br />I (RLS). <br /> Council member Malone inquired if the manhole between Lot 20 and 21 meets current <br />.. engineering standards. Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Superintendent, stated the manhole has a <br /> six percent slope, and a one percent drop in the other manhole. He stated it is not the best <br /> configuration, but is adequate. <br />I Councilmember Hicks inquired if Lot 19 was not consolidated. He stated the building footprint <br /> will have to be confined to the sideyard setback for Lot 20. <br />I Stephen Nelson, 3280 Sandeen Road, stated the lots are on a single tax statement, and was <br /> consolidated previously. He stated,in relationship to Lot 19, that there is approximately 50 feet <br />I along the road, and 12 feet along the lake, and the remaining parts were sold to Mrs. McCloskey. <br /> Mr. Nelson stated there is minimal shore land frontage. Councilmember Hicks stated he did not <br />I want the applicant to come before the Council in 10 years with a variance request on Lot 19. <br /> Councilmember Hicks inquired if the applicant was willing to consolidate the lots. Mr. Nelson <br />I stated it would be cost prohibitive, but he would be willing to state that he has no intention of <br /> subdividing or combining the subject lots. <br />I Councilmember Keirn verified that there was only one abstract, so the lots were already <br /> combined. <br />I Councilmember Hicks inquired what the existing structure would be used for. Mr. Nelson stated <br /> he intends to use it as it is, as rental property. He stated it may be removed in the future, but now <br />I. he only wants to know the potential building area. <br />I <br />