My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-08-1992
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCP 06-08-1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:09:04 PM
Creation date
11/6/2006 2:39:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning ccmnission Meeting, 6-03-92 <br /> Pages . <br /> Cl\SE #92-11 Cc:rtIT'D): <br /> Bergly indicated he visited the site during non-peak traffic hours and the noise <br /> was una=eptable and the applicant states the noise is worsening. The Planner <br /> also indicated that the fence would not =eate 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 fram literal provisions of the Ordinance are allowed where <br /> strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances <br /> unique 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 attempted to deal with the problem through a natural <br /> barrier. <br /> This variance is fram 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 /> Commission discussed the following relating to the proposed fence: . <br /> 1. No infonnation provided relating to sound decibels levels. <br /> 2. No infonnation relating to established noise =iteria which wa=ants <br /> fencing along the highway. <br /> 3. Sound abatement treabnent. <br /> 4. Placement of fences by residents on state-owned highways. <br /> Frank Ranallo, Owner , was agreeable to attempting to gather and suhnit the <br /> infonnation 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 Commission <br /> does not have enough infonnation to make a recommendation. He suggested the <br /> Applicant to obtain infonnation on established =iteria f= placement of a sound <br /> wall fram MnIXlT. <br /> Member Winiecki stated the Commission needs decibel figures and expert advice if <br /> a 10-foot fence would el:intinate their noise problem. <br /> Petersen moved, seconderl by Edckson that Commisson recommend <br /> to Council denial of Case #92-07, Variance to allow a 10 foot solid wall <br /> based on no identifiable hardship. Motion carrierl. (Carlson, Erickson, Petersen, . <br /> Piotrowski, winiecki voting in favor; Probst opposed). (5-1) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.