11-06-13 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION November 6, 20135 5. A flat rubber roof is being proposed to mimic the principle building on the property. 6. The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7. The applicant has proposed an exterior finish that is constructed with fiber cement to replicate a brick appearance. 8. The structure will not result in a use that is inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the Zoning Code or the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 9. The placement of an accessory structure in the proposed location should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. City Planner Streff stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-019 for a Permanent Accessory Structure under the Site Plan Review process. Staff recommends the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.That the exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle building and approved by the City Planner before a building permit is issued. 3.That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4.That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3.Recommend Denial. 4.Table. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Zimmerman anticipated the proposed building would not be visible from County Road F. He questioned if the siding material had to be adjusted if the building would not be seen except by those in the building. Chair Larson discussed the location of the accessory structure and noted the proposed building materials would not match the existing building. Nate Cote, CoBeck Construction, explained that the proposed exterior material would be painted to match the principle structure. He stated the proposed exterior material was superior in design when compared to other products. He reported the brick on the main building was non-standard in size and was proving difficult to find. Chair Larson questioned if staff objected to the proposed exterior color or material.