CC_Minutes_2010_1025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 25, 2010 Page 4 an appropriate amount of the existing "greenhouse" structure shall be removed to achieve the required setback; c. At least five feet (5') of the existing horseshoe driveway shall be removed by July 1, 2011 to conform to the required setback from the southern par- cel boundary; and d. The existing accessory structure and horseshoe driveway shall be removed from the southern parcel by July 1, 2011. If plans for new home construc- tion utilizing the existing driveway have been submitted by June 1, 2011, the bulk of the driveway may remain, but that pavement which is within the required five foot (5) setback from the northern parcel boundary shall be removed by July 1, 2011. Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included clarification of the revised conditions; minimum separation required and the existing horseshoe drive in rela- tionship to setback requirements; administrative review of any future building permit applications with lot lines and setback requirements to remove existing driveway to being into compliance with City Code; and the process of City Code in applicants meeting conditions for approval. Councilmember Ihlan questioned where a new structure would potentially be lo- cated and restrictions on the location of a home in comparison to adjacent lots; with staff reviewing setback and City Code requirements for placement in rela- tionship to adjacent homes. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that if the home were located closer to the rear yard, trees that currently blend in with Ramsey County Open Space would be removed, as already expressed to her by a member of the public. Mayor Klausing clarified the purpose of tonight's requested action and Public Hearing was specific to ensuring minimum requirements were met for lot width and coverage, not future improvements on the lot, with staff applying City Code standards in their review of applications for those future improvements. Councilmember Roe noted that it was unusual to apply conditions to a Minor Subdivision request requiring a topographic survey and storm water management plan as part of this action, rather than associated with the building plan process. Mr. Paschke advised that, while not out of the ordinary, there had been drainage issues raised by adjoining property owners, causing staff to seek additional infor- mation and apply additional conditions to accommodate those concerns for both lots and recorded with the property for future reference. Mayor Klausing noted that any plans would need to meet City Code requirements that neither lot created any net increase in runoff.