Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , . <br /> Minutes of the 1lrden Hills Regular Planning ('nnmi"sion Meeting, 6-03-92 <br /> Pages . <br /> CASE #92-11 (can"D): <br /> Bergly indicated he visited the site during non-peak traffic hours and the noise <br /> was unacceptable and the applicant states the noise is worsening. The Plarmer <br /> also indicated that the fence would not create a hardship for neighboring <br /> property and would not be obtrusive on the highway. <br /> The Planner concluded with the following items: <br /> 1. Variances from literal provisions of the Ordinance are allowed where <br /> strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances <br /> lU1ique to the property. In this case, the literal fence provisions were <br /> not intended to apply to sound barriers. <br /> 2. Although this noise problem is not unique to this lot, it is unique to <br /> . lots along highway frontage roads. <br /> 3. The hardship is real to the occupants and visitors to the site and the <br /> noise impact is not present on most properties in the city. <br /> 4. The owners have atterrq:>ted to deal with the problem through a natural <br /> barrier . <br /> '!his variance is from Section VI, E, (7) , (c) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow <br /> a 10-foot solid wall instead of the permitted 3 foot wall in a front yard. <br /> COrmnission discussed the following relating to the proposed fence: . <br /> 1. No information provided relating to sound decibels levels. <br /> 2. No information relating to established noise criteria which warrants <br /> fencing along the highway. <br /> 3. Sound abatement treatment. <br /> 4. Placement of fences by residents on state-owned highways. <br /> Frank Ranallo, OWner , was agreeable to atterrq:>ting to gather and suhnit the <br /> information discussed. <br /> - <br /> Member Petersen advised he favored denying the applicant, based on the lack of <br /> identifiable hardship. <br /> Chair Probst opposed recommending denial of the request; stated the COrmnission <br /> does not have enough information to make a reconunendation. He suggested the <br /> Applicant to obtain information on established criteria for placement of a sound <br /> wall from MnDOl'. <br /> Member winiecki stated the COrmnission needs decibel figures and mqJert advice if <br /> a 10-foot fence would eliminate their noise problem. <br /> Petersen moved, se=nded by Edckson that COrmnisson recannnend <br /> to ColU1cil denial of Case #92-07, Variance to allow a 10 foot solid wall <br /> based on no identifiable hardship. Motion carried. (Carlson, Erickson, Petersen, <br /> Piotrowski, winiecki voting in fav=; Probst opposed). (5-1) . <br />