Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 9-9-91 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ Planner stated the applicant and several residents of <br />the park were owosed to the installation of plantings, <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone coon:nented that the st=age area appears to be effectively <br />=eened on three sides by the presence of the trailers and the appearance. of the <br />fencing may be softened sanewhat by the installation of shrubs. He explained the <br />intent of =eening storage areas is to shield such areas from public view. <br /> <br />CASE #91-14 (Cont'd) <br /> <br />Bergly noted the intent of the r~ement is also to screen such areas from <br />adjacent properties. <br /> <br />Malone suggested more screening is necessary near the driveway to the storage <br />area, to screen the facility from public view. He stated he did not see a need <br />for the City to be involved with the management plans f= security of this area. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks agreed that some visual separation is necessary, not total <br />screening of the fence. He expressed concern that although the current residents <br />do not object to the chain link fence, future residents may prefer some <br />plantings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald concu=ed with the other members and noted that the <br />original special use permit was violated with the installation of a chain link <br />fence; coon:nented that the recommendation of the Planner and Canunission is a <br />reasonable COllllromise. Mahowald coon:nented that the motion sensor light was not <br />necessary . <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks questioned if the awlicant should be required to suJ:xnit a <br />landscaping plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Sather suggested the suJ:xnission of the plan be required as part of Council <br />action for approval of the SUP. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Malone, to approve Case #91-14, <br />Amendment to Special Use Permit to Allow the existing chain link fence around the <br />storage area to remain in place, subject to sul:mission and Planner's approval of <br />a landscaping plan for minimal screening of the west and north sides of the <br />fenced storage area, and major screening along the south side of the fence to <br />prohibit public view of the area. <br /> <br />Several members of the audience requested to be heard relative to this matter. <br /> <br />Dan Fo=ier, 1926 Todd Drive, stated he is a Federal Police Officer and expressed <br />concern that installation of plantings around the storage area is the worst thing <br />that could be done; removes security by providing a measure for persons to hide. <br />He expressed a preference for the chain link fencing to remain with no screening. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Marsha lake-Harmon, 4594 Prior Court, stated opposition to screening or a wooden <br />fence and expressed the opinion that safety and visibility are the main concern <br />of the residents adjacent to the storage area. <br /> <br />Rod Olson, 1858 Todd Drive, questioned if any COlllllaints have been received <br />relative to the condition of the storage area and noted that if the City requires <br />the plantings, the management of the park will increase the rent. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks noted that the original special use permit was approved with <br />the stipulation that a wooden fence be installed. He stated that the Council has <br />reviewed the concerns of the residents and detennined the plantings and chain <br />link fence would be a reasonable COIlpromise. <br />