CC 05-13-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 5-13-91 Page 2 SNELLING (cant 'd) Koch stated he suhnitted a "letter to the Etlit=" of the New Brighton Bulletin ani foI:Warded a =py to Counci1members. He eJq)ressed =ncern that the prqx:>sed ilrprovement of snelling Avenue was defeated ani requested Council re=nsider the matter. He advised he travels on that roadway two times per day ani suggested it is a maj= artery in the city. Koch advised the street may be too narrow to accomroodate the traffic volumes on the road, as well as persons jogging, walking, = riding bicycles. He also stated that a vast majority of persons residing in the neighborhood favor the upgrade ani widening of the street, however, notification was limited to only those persons residing on the street. He suggested Council review what is best f= the entire community ani referred to the upgrade of Hamline Avenue ani its benefit to the community. Koch thanked the Council f= the opportunity to speak on this matter. CASE #91-05; VAR. FENCE, CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC. Planner Bergly reviewed his report dated 5-1-91, relative to the application f= a fence height variance from Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 4100 Hamline Averrue. Bergly stated the proposal is for a six foot high fence placed within 8 ft. of the required front setback line on Fernwood Avenue. He noted that utilities are located in the area prqx:>sed to be fenced ani if maintenance of the utilities is necessary, replacement of the fence would be at the owner's ~. He indicated the preference would be to locate the fence between the two lines shown on the site plan. Bergly also disc"ssed. the Fire arief's request that the fence be installed behind the fire hydrants to allow access for emergency vehicles. '!he Planner explained the Planning Conunission reconnnended denial of the 3 ft. variance, based on the fact there does not appear to be a hardship identified ani approval may set precedent for other industrial/cammercial zoned properties. Bergly noted that this property is adjacent to an industrial development with a large parking lot, the fence provides an amenity to the property ani the barrier to traffic creates the appearance of security that the company is seeking. Councilmember Hansen questioned if the 6 ft. height is necessary; discussed. the fact the fence will not prohibit foot traffic from entering other areas of the site. ihe Planner explained that =nsidering the scale of develOflOOl"lt on this site, the size of the bJilding, ani the setback from the street, it appears that a 3 foot high fence would be inappropriate on the site. Councilmember Malone questioned if the Fire Chief has =ncerns regarding the placement of the fence as relates to the fire hydrants. Fire arief Winkel stated he has resolved the =ncerns relating to the fire hydrants. He expressed =ncern regarding the maintenance of the utility lines as there are manholes located behind the fence. He stated it may be difficult to access the site with the jetter truck to service the utility lines. Winkel suggested a gate = a rencvable section of fence near the manhole locations may . be sufficient to provide the access necessary.