My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-19-13-PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
2010-2019
>
PC Packets 2013
>
01-19-13-PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/9/2015 3:17:11 PM
Creation date
7/10/2013 8:55:17 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
6 <br />This planning case will be on the October 29, 2012, City Council meeting agenda. <br />PlanningCase12-016SitePlanReviewFenceStandardAdjustment;Pauland <br />B. <br />MatthewTrites <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the applicants are requesting a site plan review <br />to construct a six (6) foot fence within the 40 foot front yard setback on the property <br />located at 1850 Indian Place. The proposed fence would end 12 feet from the front <br />property line on both side lot lines. <br />CityPlannerMeaganBeekmanreviewedtheapplicantsowntheresidentialpropertyand <br />areproposingtoconstruct56linealfeetof6-foothighfence.Thefencewouldbelocated <br />alongthesidelotpropertylinewith28linealfeetoneithersideofthefrontyard.The <br />ZoningCodepermitsthree(3)foothighfencingwithinthefrontyardsetbackwithout <br />commission and council review. <br />Theapplicanthassubmittedaletteraddressingthereasoningfortheapplication,aplat <br />mapoftheproperty,asketchofthelocationofthefenceandphotographsofthesite. <br />Staffhasalsoprovidedanaerialphotographofthesite.Therearenoknownvariance <br />requests on file for this property. <br />CityPlannerMeaganBeekmanreviewedthelotisirregularinshape.Staffhas <br />determinedthelotlinethatfrontsthecul-de-sactobethefrontyardandthenorthand <br />westlotlinestobethesideyards.Inadditionaltothisplanningcase,theapplicantshave <br />beenissuedtwoseparatefencepermitapplicationsfor600feetofsix(6)foothigh <br />fencingthroughoutthesideandrearyards;whichmetallrequirementsoftheZoning <br />Code.Theapplicantsareseekingtoextendtheapprovedfenceanother28feetonboth <br />sideyards;however,thisadditionalfencingwillextendintothe40-footrequiredfront <br />yard setback for 6-foot tall fences. <br />CityPlannerMeaganBeekmanstatedtheZoningCodeallowsforapropertyownerto <br />constructafencethatdeviatesfromwhatthecodeallowsinexceptionalandunusual <br />circumstances, if approved through a Site Plan Review. <br />1325.05Subd <br />-Livability <br />-Appearance <br />-Security <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following nine findings of fact for review: <br />Theheightofthefenceexceedsthemaximumallowableheightinthefrontyard <br />1. <br />structural setback. <br />Athreefootfenceisallowedintheproposedlocationwithoutasiteplanreview <br />2. <br />process. <br />3.The proposed fence will not damage the abutting property. <br />4.The finished side of the fence will face the adjoining property. <br />5.The proposal does not improve the livability of the property. <br />Theproposaldoesnotimprovetheappearanceoftheproperty,astheproposedfence <br />6. <br />location is not consistent with other properties in the area. <br />Theproposaldoesnotimprovethesecurityoftheproperty,asathree-footfence <br />7. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.