CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning ccmnission Meeting, 6-03-92 Page 7 CASE #92-11 (a:tl'r'DI: Ms. Afong informed her J::m;iness caters to vetranarians and kennels and she sells only food and supplies. She stated she also holds educational seminars and club meetings; with the possibility of adding. 'Ihe signage has not been determined at this time, however, she stated it will conform to sign regulations. Chair Probst asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of or opposed to this matter. Eugene and Darlene Frobragd, OWner, stated his support of the Special Use Permit. Chair Probst. ask if there were any other questions or conunents. Hearing no response, the public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. Member winiecki advised there is an abandoned flag at the site and unless it is lighted, it should be removed. Winiecki moved, seconded by Carlson, that Cornrnission recommend to Council approval of Case #92-11; Special Use Permit, 1212 Red Fox Road, 'IWin city Pet SUpply Co., Inc. in a B-4 District with the following conditions: . 1. '!he city be allowed to review the operation in one year. 2. 'Ihe applicant provide a copy of the lease and evidence of title. 3. '!he applicant comply with any stipultions of the Fire Marshall. Motion carried unanimoUSly. (6-0) CASE #92-07 - VARIAN:::E. 1355 ClIMMINGS LANE. RANlU.LO: Planner Bergly reviewed his report dated 6-03-92, relating to the variance ]:"equest to allow a 10 foot solid wall, 1355 CUmmings Lane, Frank and Mary Beth Ranallo. Bergly explained since the construction of the Ranallo home in the mid-1980's which faces North HaInline Avenue, traffic noise, speed, and miscellaneous debris have excessively in=easecl. He advised the applicant is requesting to construct a 10 foot high solid western red fence sound barrier between the highway ReM and the frontage road drive. Bergly stated the Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences or solid walls higher than 10 feet in the front yard and requires fences be at least 30 percent open for passage of air and light. '!he Planner reviewed the findings listed in his report and noted the fence provisions in the Ordinance were established to allow fences f= enclosures (or separations) and visual screenin. He indicated =iteria for enclosing and screening is somewhat different than =iteria for reducing sound. Bergly also stated the applicant installed a dense evergreen screen (now 8 I to 10' high) in . the area where the fence is proposed and until the evergreens mature, the height and density are not adequate f= an effective sound barrier.