CC 10-11-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-----~--- - Minutes of Special Council Meeting October 11, 1983 Page Four (It was the understanding of Council, and Peter Miller, that the 6-month waiting period for resubmittal of a variance for an alternative sign, will not apply) . Case No. 83- 2 3 , Va ri an ce - Solid Fence 8 feet in HeiJ>;ht. 1435 Arden Oaks Drive Miller reviewed the request for an 8' high solid fence a c ro 8 s the rear of the 10 t at 1435 Arden Oaks Drive; explained that the solid fence is proposed as a sound barrier between the house and railroad tracks, and referred Council to a transparency showing . elevation of the tracks and the house. Miller explained that the original proposal was to construct the fence on the Soo Line property, at the rear of this 10 t; noted that Soo Line is not. however, a part y to the application to date. Council was referred to recommendations of the Board of Appeals (8-31-83) and Planning Commission (9-7-83) and to Planning memo (8-26-83). Mi lle r noted that both the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance because they di d not feel the proposed solid fence would be an effective sound or visual barrier on only one 10 t. Mi lie r repo rte d that it was suggested at the September 7th Planning Commission Meeting that requirements for ce rt ain Ilbarriers" be established which are di ffe rent from the requirements for f1fences" . Noted that it was felt that some intrusions are ligitimate concerns. Marcel Eibensteiner explained that his salesman apparently told Dolinars (owne rs of the home at 1435 Arden Oaks D ri ve) that there would be only one train a day; actually there are app roxima te ly 9 trains a day; therefore, he has offered to construct the 8 ' soli d fence for the Dolinars, on the Dolina rs lot. Eibensteiner said the fence, as proposed will be of cedar boards and the posts will be installed in cone re te. Eibensteiner said the fence will not be visible from Arden Oaks D ri ve . Mr. Dolinar explained that one t r ai n a day was not an important issue to us. but 9 trains a day is a IIhe.adache"; explained that the fence wi 11 help re duce the noise, and said he als 0 plans to plan t shrubs along the fence. Dolinar said that Soo Line has recently cut the brush along the r/w which makes the tracks more visible from their house. Dolinar said they experience an extreme roar (ove r 100 decibels) , and are very up se t. In discussion, Hicks asked if the fen ce , on only one lot. will help; suggested that it should possibly be e xtende d along the rear of all the lots adjacent to the r/w. Eibensteiner said the other 10 ts are heavily treed; this particular lot is not. Dolinar repo rte d tha t all of his neighbors are supportive of the proposed fence. Mi lIe r described the elevation of the tracks (928') in relation to the building pad (934'); noted that the main floor of the house is at a higher elevation. Mi lle r suggested that a combination of a berm and fence may be . more ben.efi ci ai, but a berm would use much of the rear lot, and would require maj or hauling of fill. 'fhe Effec tiveness of the proposed one-lot fence as a sound b arrie r was discussed. Concern was expressed that, as the lots are sold, others will also want fences. It was sugges ted that probably the ma t te r should be tab 1 e d until standards for lib arrie-rs II are es tab lishe d, as suggested by the Planning Commission. Mulcahy said the City has an ordinance in effect; feels barriers for app rop ri ate intrusions can best be handled by variance on an individual basis. ---