CCP 09-08-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--------- ------------------ ~~~~v I ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 25 1997 6 I Council member Malone sought clarification on the interpretation of Section VI, C, 1, and that it .. was the intent that if houses on the same block were closer to the street or on a mean setback line, that became the setback line, not necessarily further back. The current code states that, where the principle buildings have a different setback from the minimum, the setback of the new structure is not less than the prevailing setback; allowing recognition of houses closer to the I street than the prescribed 40 feet in certain neighborhoods. In situations where the principle buildings have a greater setback, COLmcilmember Malone suggested his interpretation of the I intent was not to push other buildings back. Councilmember Malone inquired ifthere had been cases come before the City where prevailing setbacks were an issue. Mr. Ringwald replied affirmatively, and that variances for setbacks had been granted based on I other houses in the area having corresponding setbacks, Mr. Ringwald cited several examples, and stated it was current City practice to require a variance for less than minimum setback, or I lines were drawn and a median number used. A discussion ensued regarding related setback Issues. Mayor Probst stated he does not fully understand the 30% open for air flow requirement, stating I there are many fences in the City that do not meet this requirement, but are still attractive to look at. Mr. Ringwald stated this issue could be set aside and discussed further in the future. I Council member Aplikowski noted businesses have high fences and do not have open for air flow requirements, Mr. Ringwald stated this is for screening. ~ Councilmember Aplikowski noted this could be taken as a double standard, as the ordinance reads "except for screening". I MOTION: Hicks moved and Malone seconded a motion to authorize the City Attorney to make the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Planning I Commission, excepting the sections outlined in the attached memo and section VI, E, 4, c for fulther clarification. I Councilmember Malone requested an amendment to approve section VI, E, 4, c since the majority of the Council approvc of this change. Councilmember Hicks accepted the amendment. I Councilmember Aplikowski suggested this section should not be approved until the solid wall issue is completely clarified. I Councilmember Malone withdrew the amendment. Councilmember Aplikowski inquired why Round Lake is classified as Recreational I Development. Mr. Ringwald stated this c1assilication is assigned by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), not by the City. He suggested this classification may have been applied due I to the normal recreational character oflakes, even though not applicable to Round Lake, \ -- I