CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.- , . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning ccmnission Meeting, 6-03-92 Page 10 . C1lSE #92-08: 1. The views from the City trail is the factor the applicant is seeking to minimize and directly irrpact this property. 2. '!he provisions in the Ordinance regarding both height and openness of fences do not allow an effective screen for allowing privacy in the pool and terrace area. 3. '!he elevations of the lot do not allow flexibility of placing the pool = terrace so they would not be irrpacted by trail users. Member winiecki expressed her concern of placing a wall near a park trail would promote violence and would take away from the openness of the trail system. Mr. Dlugosch stated three reasons why he needs the wall: privacy, safety and security, and architectural consistency. '!here was discussion regarding further proposed landscaping, placement of the pool in another area on his lot, fencing around the pool, and if his fence would provide 30 percent requirement for air and lighting. Peterson moved, seconded by winiecki that Commission recarrrrnend to Council denial of Case #92-08, Variance to allow a 6 foot fenced wall in a residential side yard. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) C1lSE #92-10: SIDE YARD VARIANCE. 3465 SIEMS aJURT. DUNN (SHORE OWNER): . Planner Bergly reviewed his report dated 6-03-92, relating to a side yard variance of 3 feet for an attached garage, 3465 siems Court, Donald Shore. Bergly stated the applicant proposed a variance to allow a single car garage to be expanded to a two car garage that will require a 3-foot side yard variance on the north side of the house. '!he existing garage is 15 feet 2 inches from the lot line and with the proposed extension of 8 feet 2 inches, the remaining side -yard would be 7 feet. A 10 foot side yard is required. No elevation drawings or floor plans at this time. '!he Planner reviewed the findings and noted the following: 1. The neighborhood was developed prior to present zoning standards and most homes on this segment of siems Court do not conform to present standards. '!he placement of the home in the center of the lot does not allow a two- car garage without a variance. 2. '!he present one car garage does not meet conterrq:>orary development needs where two and three car garages are now the standard. Only this house and the one directly a=oss the street now have single car garages along this segment of siems Court. 3. The garage on the lot directly north of and adjacent this parcel is 6.5 feet from the lot line from which the proposed variance is requested. '!his home and the Donald Shore home have approximately the same front yard set back. '!his neighboring garage was constructed in 1956, two years . after the home was milt.