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 refe:rred to the Planner's report and Planning FRONT & REAR YARD Cormnission minutes dated 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 explained that two separate actions on the requested variances will J::e required. He des=ibecl the request for a front yard setback variance to accormnodate a garage addition at the Hauck residence. Bergly reviewed the findings of fact listed on page 1 of his report and stated the Planning Cormnission and Board of Appeals recommended denial of the front yard setback variance based on these findings and no identifiable physical hardship and that the addition will extend. J::eyond 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 explained there is sufficient plantings along the rear of the applicants property to provide s=eening of the proposed addition from the adjacent residence. The Planner stated the Planning Connnission and Board of Appeals recommended approval of the 2.4 f=t rear yard setback variance, based on the findings listed in the Planner's report, the unusual lot configuration and the fact the variance will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. Council111ernl::er Growe noted the subject property also has a fence in the rear yard to provide further s=eening of the proposed addition from adjacent properties. . Malone moved, 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 unanllnously. (4-0) Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to approve the 2.4 f=t rear yard setback requested, Case #90-16, for a building addition and deck, based on the unusual lot configuration 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 refe:rred to a meroorandum from the Clerk HE.I\RnIG; LEXINGIDN Administrator dated 11-9-90, relative to the Metropolitan AVENUE SIUDY Council initial approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the Lexington Avenue study. Planner Bergly explained the Planning Cormnission requested he poll the Council to determine if a public hearing should J::e scheduled at the next regular Planning meeting on December 5 or if Council prefe:rred the public hearing J::e scheduled for a future Council meeting. Council111ernl::er Malone questioned if the public hearing should J::e postponed until such time as all connnents are received from the Met Council, as noted in the letter, after January 1991. .