CCP 11-26-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 .. .. Page 2 CASE #90-16; VAR. Council was referre:i to the Planner's report and Planning FRONT & REAR YARD Conunission minutes date:i 11-7-90, relative to the request SEI'BACKS, 1388 for front and rear yard setback variances at 1388 Arden . ARDEN OAKS DRIVE, Oaks Drive, Mr. & Mrs. Hauck. The Planner explaine:i that two separate actions on the requested variances will be required. He des=iJ:;ed the request for a front yard setback variance to accamrnodate a garage addition at the Hauck residence. Bergly reviewed the findings of fact listed on page 1 of his report and stated the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals reconnnended denial of the front yard setback variance based on these findings and no identifiable physical hardship and that the addition will extend beyond the site line for adjacent properties on Arden Oaks Drive. Planner Bergly des=ibed the rear yard setback request and reviewed his findings of fact listed on page 2 of his report, noting the unusual lot configuration and placement of the home on the lot by the original builder as identifiable hardships. He also explaine:i there is sufficient plantings along the rear of the applicants property to provide screening of the proposed addition from the adjacent residence. The Planner stated the Planning Conunission and Board of Appeals recommende:i approval of the 2.4 foot rear yard setback variance, based on the findings listed in the Planner's report, the unusual lot =nfiguration and the fact the variance will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Council1nember Grawe noted the subject property also has a fence in the rear yard to provide further screening of the proposed addition from adjacent properties. Malone move:i, seconded by Hansen, to deny the front yard . variance request, Case #90-16, based on no identifiable physical hardship relating to the property, the findings of fact listed in the Planner's report dated 11-7-9,0 and the fact that the addition will affect the site line of adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Malone move:i, seconde:i by Grawe, to approve the 2.4 foot rear yard setback requested, Case #90-16, for a building addition and deck, based on the unusual lot =nfiguration and placement of the home on the property as identifiable hardships and that the variance as requested will pose no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) SCHEDULE PUBLIC Council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk HEARING; LEXINGTON Administrator dated 11-9-90, relative to the Metropolitan AVENUE SI'UDY Council initial approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the Lexington Avenue study. Planner Bergly explained the Planning Conunission requested he poll the Council to determine if a public hearing should be schedule:i at the next regular Planning meeting on December 5 or if Council preferred the public hearing be scheduled for a future Council meeting. Council1nember Malone questioned if the public hearing should be postponed until such time as all corrnnents are recei ve:i from the Met Council, as noted in the letter, after January 1991- .