Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 11-13-90 <br /> Page 2 <br /> CASE #90-16; VAR. Council was referred to the Planner's report and Planning <br /> FRONr & REAR YARD Commission minutes dated 11-7-90, relative to the request <br />~ SEl'BACKS, 1388 for front and rear yard setback variances at 1388 Arden <br /> ARDEN OAKS DRIVE, Oaks Drive, Mr. & Mrs, Hauck. <br /> The Planner explained that two separate actions on the requested variances will <br /> be required. He described the request for a front yard setback variance to <br /> acconnnodate a garage addition at the Hauck residence. Bergly reviewed the <br /> findings of fact listed on page 1 of his report and stated the Planning <br /> Cormnission and Board of Appeals recammended denial of the front yard setback <br /> variance based on these fin:lings and no identifiable physical hardship and that <br /> the addition will exten:J beyond the site line for adjacent properties on Arden <br /> Oaks Drive. <br /> Planner Bergly des=ibed the rear yard setback request and reviewed his findings <br /> of fact listed on page 2 of his report, noting the unusual lot =nfiguration and <br /> placement of the home on the lot by the original J:uilder as identifiable <br /> hardships. He also explained there is sufficient plantings along the rear of the <br /> applicants property to provide screening of the proposed addition from the <br /> adjacent residence. <br /> The Planner stated the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals recommended <br /> approval of the 2.4 foot rear yard setback variance, based on the findings listed <br /> in the Planner's report, the unusual lot =nfiguration and the fact the variance <br /> will have no adverse effect on the adjacent properties. <br /> Council1nember Gr=e noted the subject property also has a fence in the rear yard <br />. to provide further s=eening of the proposed addition from adjacent properties. <br /> Malone moved, seconded by Hansen, to deny the front yard <br /> variance request, Case #90-16, based on no identifiable physical hardship <br /> relating to the property, the firrlings of fact listed in the Planner's report <br /> dated 11-7-9,0 and the fact that the addition will affect the site line of <br /> adjacent properties. Motion =ied unanilnously. (4-0) <br /> Malone moved, seconded by Growe, to approve the 2.4 foot <br /> rear yard setback requested, Case #90-16, for a J:uilding addition and deck, based <br /> on the unusual lot =nfiguration and placement of the home on the property as <br /> identifiable hardships and that the variance as requested will pose no adverse <br /> effect on the adjacent properties. Motion =ied unan:i1nously. (4-0) <br /> SCHEDULE PUBLIC Council was referred to a memorandum from the Clerk <br /> HEARING; LEXlNGI'ON Administrator dated 11-9-90, relative to the Metropolitan <br /> AVENUE SIDDY Council initial approval of the Comprehensive Plan <br /> Amendment relating to the Lexington Avenue study. <br /> Planner Bergly explained the Planning Commission requested he poll the Council to <br /> determine if a public hearing should I:e scheduled at the next regular Planning <br /> meeting on December 5 or if Council preferred the public hearing I:e scheduled for <br /> a future Council meeting. <br /> Council1nember Malone questioned if the public hearing should I:e postponed until <br /> such time as all carmnents are received from the Met Council, as noted in the <br />. letter, after January 1991, <br />