CC 06-25-1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Reguiar Council Meeting June 25, 1979 Page Three Woodburn moved, seConded by Hanson, that Councii accept construction of the cul-de-sac as ftnal satisfaction of the Wynridge park dedicatton, contingent upon i) Award of the bid for improvement SS-W-P-ST 78-6 prTor to July 8, 1979, and 2) Oeveloper's written agreement that construction of the cul-de-sac in Cummings Park is final satisfaction of park dedi- catton 4or Wynridge. Motton carr(ed. (Woodburn, Ha�son, Wtngert, Crepsaq voting i� favor of the Motton; Crichton votTng in oppostt(on.) Olenvlew Avenue Sto m SeNer • hristoffersen �eferred Council to hts letter of June 6, 1979� re • capacity of existing storm sexec {n the vlcloity of Gle�vfew Avenue and Glenvlex Court, and suggested resolutlon of the drainage probtem on the Ca�ift property xhen a storm exceeding the 5-year average frequency occurs. In discussion, it was noted that the cfty normally provides protection from the 5-year storm frequency. Counc(i queried necessity to provide individual house pratsction against a 50-100 year storm frequency at a cost of EIO.U00. After dPscussion of the various alternative corrective �asures described by Chrtstoffersen,and pending a vtsual on-stte inspectton during a hsavy rain, to see if pipe is flowing at full capaCity, an interim solutioo suggested was that the Public Works Department expose the pipe and tn- stall a manhole at the bend for ciean-out and Inspectton. It was noted that the pipe bend ts located off the bttuminous.�.r'�w�l�t Couocll did not take actdon on thls matte� at tonight's meeting. Case No. 79-T Verfance � James Danielsen, 3288 N. Hamline Ave. Wingar referred C uncil to repor of BoRrd of Appea�s (4 3%74) recom- roendtng Council �p�raval of the requestea varlance and to the Planning Co�mission M[nutes of 6/19/79, recommending Cou�cil deeiel ofi the vartaoce because a persuaslve hardsfitp tc the tand or to the structure:.has not been presented. Danielsen presented an al:ternate expanston p1an,:which does not requtre a varlance; expialned that`this alternate configuration Ts clumay and does not accomplish the(r pbJectives; prefers'to pnrsue the expanslon . toward ths lake; oot�d:fiha.t exist(ng house is actually 44' feom the high water mark, so �arlan¢e requested Is 8' rath.er than 12' as requested. Danielsen noted ?hat his n�ighbor's house Is 25'`from the htgh w$t.$r mark. Neither of hi"s:.netg.hbors object to the proposed lake s(de �zpansion. Oanielsen satd fihat the a.i`ternate plan presents a:cost disedvanta.ge:as well as �he additlon o.f another roof iloe whfch Q[Y�f th� a�p�i;aso� o! -. a "chopped up house"•.-. � i . � � . �:-a'r - After �eview of the P�larine'`r's report l4/26/791,'plans and dFs;eu�ss�n, Wingert moved, seconded by,,Woodburn, that Councii•-deny the 8�':�take`set- back variance because�a d�finable hardship to the `iand or strueture.has not been shown. Motion carris�l.. (Wingert, Hanson, Crichton, Crep�au • voting in favor of the Motion; Woodburn absta{ned.) Danielsen said he would iike a defini.tion of "stroctural harAship"; it you exclude "cost",�what do you have2 Case No. 79-II, Variance - Wiltiam Ruppel� 1911 Glenpaul Avenue Wingert raferred Counc1l-�to Mtnutss of the Planning CommissTon Meeting of 6/19/79, recommending Councll approval af a 4' sideyard vari�nce for the proposed garage, rather than the 6' vartance requested. It was noted that the exist(ng gar8ge is indicated at.6' from the side property line. A 4' stdeyard varianca for the new garage would not, therefore, increase the side yerd encroachment. It was noted that a recommandatiao frcm the Boe�d of Appeals has nat been received.