CC 05-13-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 5-13-91 Page 3 CASE #91-05 (Cont'd) Council discussed the type of fence, =nstruction material ani proposed =lor. Council questioned if the applicant would =nsider a compromise height f= the fence ani provide a gate f= maintenance vehicle access near the utilities, as discussed. 'Ihe Planner displayed a photograph of the fence ani explained the fence is aluminum, proposed to be black = bronze in =lor. 'Ihe Architect representing CPI stated the six foot height seems appropriate f= the developnent on the site. He agreed to place the gates as required f= maintenance purposes ani suggested the applicant may be amenable to a five foot fence. Councilmember Hansen agreed that the 3 foot fence height would not be appropriate f= the scale of developnent on this site. She agreed that the fence would give the appearance of security ani deter drive-in traffic. Hansen was not opposed to the variance if the applicant agrees to provide access for maintenance vehicles. . Councilmember Malone stated the intent of the zoning ordinance requirements pertaining to a 3 foot fence height were ilrposed to protect residential properties. He suggested the hardship may be that the site actually has frontage on three streets ani the Fernwood access is =nsidered the rear of the site; the address for CPI is on Hamline Avenue. Malone indicated this is an industrial property ani should be viewed from a different perspective than residential property. He was not opposed to the requested variance =nditioned upon the applicant providing sufficient access for utility maintenance. Malone moved, se=nded by Hansen, to approve Case #91-06, Variance f= height ani location of a 6 foot high fence in the front yard of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., for the pI,-,>,,=-,- Lj fronting on Fernwood Avenue, as indicated in the Planner's report dated 5-1-91, based on the following: 1. 'Ihe fence is in the open spirit of the fencing requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance. 2. 'Ihe hardship identified being the property has three front yards ani the property is clearly structured to define the Fernwood Avenue entrance as a rear yard. 3. 'Ihe applicant has chosen a particular fence design which maintains the open effect identified in the ordinance requireJOOnts. ani =nditioned upon the applicant providing access for utility vehicles in the design of the fence, to allow maintenance of utility lines, as approved by the Public Works SUperintendent, ani additional laOO.scaping at the site entrance, as approved by the Planner. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) RECEIPl'; PErITIONS IMPR\IMI' . CEA'IHAM CIRCLE & rouRI' Council was referred to a memorandum from Deputy Clerk Iago dated 5-10-91, relative to receipt of petitions frCll\ the residents of Chatham Court ani Chatham circle. . Attorney Filla outlined the options for Council action. He explained the Chatham Circle petition is =ect ani may be declared adequate by Council, which eliminates the necessity of a public hearing on that portion of the ilrprovement project. He further stated an assessment hearing is required.