CC 07-29-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I .. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I I. I I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JULY 29,1996 7 I. The applicant obtained a building permit for the fence and may not have been informed of the requirements for the construction of said fence; 2, The fence has been in place for at least nine years, without receiving a complaint, and when constructed the adjacent property was undevelopable; 3, The topography of the property to the east of the applicant has been recently altered, such that there currently exists a severe grade differential between the lots which may not allow for the necessary modifications to the fence; and 4, The fence has been well taken care of and complies with the remaining Code requirements, Councilmember Malone stated he has observed the fence and Planning Commission arguments, but finds no merit in their arguments, He stated he had constructed a fence in the past and was advised of the City's requirements prior to construction, Councilmember Malone noted that the applicant is responsible to conform with the Code and also questioned the fence portion which extends into the front yard area, He stated he believes the Building Inspector's recommendation for modification is appropriate and he does not support the Planning Commission's recommendation, Acting Mayor Aplikowski agreed all should know that the unfinished side of a fence goes towards the outside, She agreed that the unusual circumstances consideration is not valid, but expressed concern that this has not been addressed for nine years and that the City does not seek enforcement except on a complaint basis, Council member Keirn inquired if there is a reason to issue an exception and whether this particular fence has been singled out due to a complaint. She also asked how to avoid a "war hunt" to gain compliance for all other fences in violation, Councilmember Keirn stated if the appeal is not supported, she would expect staff to enforce the same conditions on every fence, Councilmember Malone noted this type of enforcement condition exists in cities with a small staff but most fences in Arden Hills do comply because people are intormed of requirements prior to construction, MOTION: Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to deny Planning Case #96-11, Administrative Appeal of Michael Welsh, The motion carried (3-0-1 Keirn), ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS Regarding the infiltration and inflow grant offered by the MCES, Mr. Fritsinger advised one requirement of obtaining this grant is compliance with the Metropolitan Council Liveable Communities Act, This is the first time the City has received funding that would have been lost should the City have elected to not participate in this program,