Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 25. 1997 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Mayor Probst inquired where the front yard is on this property. Mr. Ringwald showed an <br />overhead of the property. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated the ordinance was in place when this fence was built, and to grant these <br />variances would set a bad precedent, as the City can't arbitrarily approve one and not another. <br />He stated it would be possible to approve a variance for height but not for the finished side out. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated the fence was also built without a permit, and a building <br />contractor would have known the finished side belongs facing out. He stated others in the area <br />have complied with the ordinance, and to grant a variance would send the wrong message to <br />others in the area who have obtained permits and are in compliance with Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Welsh stated he knows ofa fence built just last summer that does not comply with the 30% <br />open for air flow ordinance. Mrs. Welsh stated the repairs would necessitate destroying the new <br />owner's and adjacent neighbor's landscaping. <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald noted that neighbors directly adjacent to this property have talked to staff, as of <br />last summer. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to deny the variance for height in <br />front yard and finished side out, but approve the 30 percent open for air flow <br />variance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Keim noted an item can only be "grandfathered" in if no ordinance existed at the <br />time of construction, and this was not the case with this fence. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks inquired ifthe new owners had been informed of this issue, as it would be <br />the new owner's responsibility to correct the problem. He stated he hopes they were told, as <br />doing so would have been the responsibility of the Welsh's. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated she knew of another similar problem in the area, and that <br />fence was able to be brought up to Code without any major destruction oflandscaping. She <br />further stated this problem was no longer the applicant's responsibility. Mrs. Welsh stated they <br />are still the ones receiving notices from the City regarding this matter. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked for a vote on the motion. <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />A-2. Planning Case #97-16, Site Plan ReviewNariance (Height ofStrncture) - Friskies <br />Pet Care, 4251 Fernwood Avenue <br /> <br />Mr. Ringwald stated the petitioner is requesting approval of site plan review for a 672 square <br />foot addition which is to accommodate an enclosed silo onto their existing facility, including a <br />