CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Re;JUlar Planning Ocmni.ssion Meeting, 6-03-92 . Page 9 Cl\SE #92-11 (<:x:2iIT'D): It was suggested that Ranallo provide the information prior to Council action on this matter or a re:{Uest that action on the matter be delayed until receipt of the information relating to the fence. Acting Clerk Administrator Catherine Iago suggested Mr. Ranallo =ntact Mary Bierenger at MnlXJI' obtain sound wall and decibel information as a guideline. Member Barbara piotrowski left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Cl\SE #92-08; V1lRIANCE. 1717 PARKSHl:IlE IIUVE #1112. DLUGC6CH: Planner Bergly review his report dated 6-03-92, relating to the variance re:{Uest to allow a 6 f(Xlt fenced wall in a residential side yard (2 1/2 foot variance for solid wall or a variance from the 30 percent open re:{Uirement), 1717 Parkshore Drive #1112, James Dlugosch. Bergly explained the applicant proposes a variance to allow a 6 f(Xlt solid wall along a side property line. 'Ihe fence would be setl:ack 40 feet from the street and will extend south 64 feet; the top of the wall will be 107 feet and the ground at the base will be 101 feet. TIle very south end of the wall will be . approxilnately 11 feet high. 'Ihe Planner reviewed the findings listed in his report and stated a city trail is located immediately east of the applicants property. TIle proposed JX10l in the rear yard of the proposed house would be exposed to trail users without a solid fence. Bergly stated the applicant feels that privacy from the trail is :i1nportant and neither a 42" wall or a 30 percent open fence allowed up to 6 feet high would provide the desired privacy. 'Ihe applicant also feels the trail is an amenity but would like privacy, too. ]3ergly indicated the land use east of the trail is higher density residential and a buffer between single family and higher densities is considered appropriate. 'Ihe usable site area on the lot is limited due to the sloping rear yard and full utilization of the upper portion is proposed. 'Ihe Planner also indicated the nearest tcMnhornes are approximately 150 feet east of the trail easement and will not be iIrpacted by the solid fence. Neither air circulation or light as specified in the Ordinance provision re:{Uiring 30 percent opermess in a fence are issues due to proximity. Planner Bergly explained the trail easement is 35 feet wide and will provide ample space for air circulation and the 64 foot long wall does not iIrpact a portion of the trail. TIle wetland on the south end of the lot will not be affected by the wall. 'Ihe Planner =ncluded to recommend approval of the variance and stated 3 reasons . why it is appropriate: