CCAgenda_05Sep28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 3. Resolution Authorizinc City to Eliminate 2005 Debt Levy on General Obligation Debt The council adopted a resolution authorizing the City to remove G.O. Improvement Bonds 1999A from the 2005 tax levy in the amount of $125, 207.00, as outlined below. Councilmember Lamb moved to adopt resolution 2005-11, and the motion was unanimously approved. N0.2005-11 ELIMINATION OF THE 2006 DEBT LEVY ON GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT WHEREAS, the City Council of Falcon Heights has sufficient funds on hand in the Debt Service fund and other funds, and WHEREAS, this amount is reserved for the debt payment on the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1999A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Falcon Heights that the following be removed from the 2005 tax levy: G.O. Improvement Bonds 1999A $125, 207.00 4. Variance Requests for 1800 N. Albert Street • Administrator Worthington began the item by giving a brief history of the property - information was retrieved from the council agenda packet for 9-14-05. She gave the specs of the parcel, which is 68.58 feet wide by 295.4 feet deep, with an area of 20,473.2 square feet. The property is unusual in that it is one of the series of double deep lots on Albert and Hamline, south of Garden and north of Larpenteur. These properties are at least twice as large as other properties in the neighborhood. The owner of 1800 N. Albert proposed construction of a triple garage measuring 24' x 38' with space for three cars and a workshop, set 10 feet east of the house. The proposed garage would require a variance of 8.5 feet on setback from the right-of--way. The proposed garage would also require a variance of 7 feet to accommodate the 31 foot driveway in order to give access to the three bays of the garage. The property is eligible fora 24 foot absolute maximum. Administrator Worthington reported the planning commission voted 4-2 to deny the variance. Councilmember Lindstrom encouraged the council to uphold the planning commission's decision by expressing concern on the set-back of the proposed garage because of its proximity to the street. The current garage structure allows for storage inside, however cars parked on the driveway hang out into the street, causing concern for motorists and pedestrians. The new garage would be in the same location as the current structure, sti116 to 7 feet off the street. Councilmember Lindstrom suggested the homeowner look into constructing the garage farther back on his lot to meet the set-back requirements since the space is available. Councilmember Lamb stated he would support a variance for a width extension on the driveway, but the set-back was a concern. He questioned whether the planning •