My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-03-12 PC
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
PC Minutes 2012
>
10-03-12 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2017 4:26:25 PM
Creation date
6/6/2017 4:26:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 7 <br /> <br />- Security <br /> <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following nine findings of fact for review: <br /> <br />1. The height of the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height in the front yard <br />structural setback. <br />2. A three foot fence is allowed in the proposed location without a site plan review <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 />6. The proposal does not improve the appearance of the property, as the proposed fence <br />location is not consistent with other properties in the area. <br />7. The proposal does not improve the security of the property, as a three-foot fence <br />would effectively provide security for the property. <br />8. There is a documented history of conflict between the applicant and the adjoining <br />property owners. <br />9. The proposal will not alleviate the conflict amongst the property owners as there are <br />other remedies available outside of erecting a 6-foot fence in the front yard. <br /> <br />City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the findings of fact for this Site Plan Review <br />support a recommendation for denial. If the Planning Commission wishes to make a <br />recommendation for approval, the findings of fact must be amended to reflect the reasons <br />for the approval. <br /> <br />Staff has received comments from four residents. Christine Pulzer called Staff today to <br />speak in favor of the proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked about the findings of fact that the fence would not <br />resolve the conflicts with the neighbors. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff <br />reviewed this with the City Attorney and there are other remedies available to resolve the <br />conflicts. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stodola asked if shrubs or hedges could be planted. City Planner <br />Beekman stated some vegetation could be planted and could grow quite high however if <br />any of the vegetation were to grow on the neighbors property they would have the right to <br />cut the portion on their property. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Thompson asked if plantings can be done on the right-of-way. City Planner <br />Beekman stated plantings can be done in the right-of-way; however, it is subject to <br />removal if necessary. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holewa verified there are four houses on the cul-de-sac. City Planner <br />Beekman showed the location on the existing fences on the aerial view. <br /> <br />Ms. Beekman noted there is a 20 foot easement at the back of the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Matt Trites, 1850 Indian Place, stated the northern fence is not placed correctly on <br />the aerial view. It will not connect to anything. The southwest property line fence has a <br />gate. There are two trees planted on the property line, which will not be disturbed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.