Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 8, 2001 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion <br />to approve Planning Case #00-37, Thomas Whittles, 1867 Glen Paul Avenue, <br />Front Yard Variance. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Case #00-40, Manufacturer's Services, 4300 Round Lake Road, Planned Unit <br />Development (PUD) Amendment <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput explained the applicant was requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development for <br />4300 West Round Lake Road for expansion of a trash compactor from an eight-yard compactor <br />to a forty-yard compactor. Ms. Chaput stated applicant's business had grown significantly in <br />staff size and business volume, requiring the need for an expansion to their compactor. The <br />expanded forty-yard compactor would allow the business to operate more efficiently with a more <br />cost-effective way of disposing of solid waste. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput stated the Zoning Ordnance required that, "Screening shall also be provided where <br />mechanical operating equipment is located on the ground or on the roof of the <br />premises.. . constructed and located to present direct view of the equipment". Screening types <br />may be a fence, wall or landscaping area. It was the property owner's responsibility to provide <br />screening, as required. Currently, the eight-yard trash compactor was not screened. It was <br />situated outside a large screened area, holding liquid nitrogen tanks. The compactor was not <br />currently enclosed because it was pulled five days a week for servicing and could not be accessed <br />from within an enclosure. Also, it was not visible from the road since it was screened by the <br />adjacent enclosure. Since the proposed compactor was significantly larger than the existing <br />compactor, the applicant had proposed a screening fence that juts out from the enclosure to solely <br />screen the compactor from the road. This would be on one side of the screening, not an <br />enclosure. The applicant proposed that it match the materials and height of the existing <br />screening that was currently beside the compactor and extend for the length of the compactor <br />surpasses the enclosure. The proposed forty-yard compactor was an overall length of26' plus <br />the doghouse, which was an additional 5 feet. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput stated the Planning Commission recommended approval for the expansion of the <br />trash compactor from eight-yard to forty-yards with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Construct a screening fence in the location shown on the applicant's plan of the same <br />materials, opacity and height of the existing screened enclosure to the west of the <br />existing compactor, screening liquid nitrogen tanks; and <br /> <br />2. Application for a building permit must be made with the Building Inspector; and <br /> <br />3. The compactor may be installed immediately on the condition that the screening will <br />be in place by no later than June 1, 2001. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput indicated while reviewing this case, the Planning Commission expressed some <br />dissatisfaction with an existing dumpster on the property. She stated staff would contact United <br />Properties to discuss the issue of dumpster screening for this location as well as the buildings <br />along Gateway Boulevard. <br />