CCP 10-28-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I" U~At I ~e ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER IS. 1996 3 James Danielson, applicant, stated he has nothing to add to the presentation of Staff and believes I the modification complies with the desires ofthe COlillciL He added the relocation is an improvement and additional landscaping will be provided to improve the view from the street. I Mayor Probst concurred the proposed relocation is a better fit with the Lynch property and more attractive than the area where the building could be located without the need for a variance. He I indicated his intention to support variance approval. MOTION: Hicks moved and Malone seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #96-13, I James Danielson, 3238 N. Hamline Avenue, Variance, as revised and based on the following rationale: 1) this garage could be constructed in the front yard without I the need for a variance; however, it would result in a greater constraint to the visual aspect of neighbors; 2) the subject property is located on a lakefront and of unusual shape with limited back yard area; 3) the existence of an unusually large I right-of-way for Hamline Avenue; 4) consideration of the requested variance will result in an overall reduction of the existing non-conforming situation; and S) the restriction that no further building will be constructed on the site within this I building envelope. Councilmember Aplikowski agreed with comments made but questioned the restriction on . further building, It was explained that the restriction is to prohibit further construction within the building envelope. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is glad this situation could be worked out between staff and the applicant for the betterment of both parties. I The motion carried unanimously (S-O). I Mr. Danielson stated he will comply with the restriction prohibiting further construction within the building envelope. I Due to the late arrival of Sheriff Fletcher, Mayor Probst requested the agenda be revised to delay Agenda Item 6B and next consider Agenda Items 6C, 6D, 6E, and 6F. I C. 1996 Street Improvements, Change Order #2 I Greg Stonehouse, City Engineer, advised the Council is asked to approve Change Order #2 as part ofthe 1996 Street Improvement Project. This Change Order is needed to account for additional costs incurred as a result of the realignment of Oak Avenue to the east due to easement I issues and is specific to the construction of a retaining wall on Oak A venue and replacement of several trees. He advised the total cost of Change Order #2 is $10,600, I MOTION: Malone moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Change Order #2 as part of the 1996 Street Improvement Project in the amount of $1 0,600. The It motion carried unanimously (S-O). I