CCP 06-29-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Arden Hills Council 13 June 8, 1992 required to be enclosed. Rather than a fence, he preferred the enclosure be accomplished by a stucco wall, the finish of which would match the exterior of the house and create a more pleasant aesthetic architecture. Mr. Dlugosch stated he understands the concerns of precedent setting and the need for finding of hardship, having himself served on the New Brighton Planning Commission, but thinks the solid wall would function the same as a fence, and there are no neighbors near enough to be impacted by the wall. When asked to provide input, Planner Bergly opined that the wall would not infringe substantially on the trail or have negative impact on the public. He stated he would accept the wall, but suggested perhaps staggering the height and shortening the length of the wall to make it appear less obtrusive. Councilmember Malone commented that while he appreciates the applicant's arguments, he shares the Planning Commission's concern of closing off the view from the trail. He suggested some creative fencing which would coordinate with . the architecture of the home and pool. Councilmember Mahowald stated that it appears the proposed wall is not much different from a fence and perhaps the more aesthetic option would be preferred. Councilmember Hicks asked what is planned for the rear of the pool area. Me Dlugosch said that is yet to be determined, that there is a severe cliff behind the pool which must be dealt with. Hicks asked if Dlugosch would accept a wall of less length, perhaps not running all the way to the front corner of the house. Mrs. Dlugosch said that would be a possibility, but it would limit the use of the property on the east side of the house as backyard. MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to deny a variance for Case 92-08 on the grounds of lack of demonstrable hardship. Motion carried (3-2; Growe & Mahowald voted nay) . CASE #92-10 SIDE YARD VARIANCE EVIE DUNN, 3465 SIEMS COURT City Planner Bergly explained that Case 92-10 involves a request for a sideyard variance of three feet to allow . expansion of an attached single car garage to a double car garage at 3465 Siems Court. He added that there is no other possible layout which would conform to ordinance without the need for a setback variance. He reported that Planning Commission recommended approval.