My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08-13-1990
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CC 08-13-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:10 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:22:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 8-13-90 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CASE #90-10 (COnt'd) Meyer explained that in researching sewer and water <br />utilities it was noted that three utility stubs were <br />installed in this area, which suggests initial planning for three lots. He noted <br />the proposed lots are compatible with residential lots in this area, although <br />they are below =ent lot area requirements. <br /> <br />'lhe Attorney reviewed the corxlitions for variance COllpliance in conj1.UlCtion with <br />Minor SUJ:x:livisions, which differs scxnewhat from zoning code variance <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to approve Case <br />#90-10, Minor SUbdivision of Lot 6, Barstad Division and Lot Area variance of 752 <br />square feet for lDts B and C, based on the variance request meeting all <br />provisions as required by SUb:livision Regulations, and subject to the following: <br /> <br />1. That the present driveway access to Harnline Avenue be removed as the new lot <br />(A) will front on Amble Road. <br />2. That utility and drainage easements be provided to the city as required by the <br />City Engineer. <br />3. That the City Attorney and Engineer approve the sul:division documents to be <br />filed with Ramsey County. <br />4. That park dedication fees be paid to the city prior to issuance of blllding <br />pennits for the three lots. <br />5. That the existing breezeway and garage on Lot A, which en=oach on Lot B, be <br />removed :i1nmediately, and that the existing dwelling on Lot A be razed prior to <br />issuance of a blllding permit for either lDt A or B, or within three years, <br />whichever occurs first. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Motion carried unan:i1nously. (5-0) <br /> <br />STATUS REPORI'; <br />LEXINGTON/FOX <br />STODY AREA, <br />DRAFT REZONING <br /> <br />Council was referred to a report from Clerk Administrator <br />Berger dated 8-10-90, and a memorandum from Planner <br />Bergly dated 8-13-90, relative to the Draft Zoning <br />Districts for the I.exirgton/Fox Business District. <br /> <br />Planner Bergly advised the Planning Commission reviewed the draft zoning <br />districts d=urnent and 1I'ade some modifications prior to recammending Council <br />action. He explained the draft has been prepared for suhnission to the <br />Metropolitan Council for their review and input prior to scheduling any public <br />hearings on the 1I'atter; a response should be returned within two months. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla advised he will prepare an Ordinance which :imposes a moratorium on <br />development in this area lIDtil such time as the rezoning has been accomplished; <br />the d=urnent will be returned for Council action at their September 10 meeting. <br /> <br />DRIVEWAY <br />RFSIORATION; <br />1680 OAK AVE. <br />DR. ALBJERG <br /> <br />Council was referred to a letter from Attorney Filla <br />dated 8-8-90 and a report from the Clerk Administrator <br />dated 8-10-90, relative to the re:i1nbJrsement request from <br />Dr. Albjerg for driveway restoration. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla advised the city's contractor did not do the restoration work; the <br />work was done by a contractor hired by Dr. Albjerg with the Imowleclge and consent <br />of the City. He recamrnended that the city rei.mb..1rse Dr. Albjerg in the amount of <br />$2,065.00, which is approximately 40 percent of the City's contract costs. Filla <br />explained this was anticipated when the assessment roll was prepared and has been <br />included in the costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.