My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-08-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CCP 06-08-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:58 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:42:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> . -. <br /> Minutes ot the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 3, 1987 <br /> Page 3 <br /> . CASE #87-l8 (Cont'd) The Commission questioned the life expectancy of the <br /> air-supported structure, how long it remains in place <br /> during the year, if the 40 ft. height is necessary, and what type of <br /> replacement structure would be installed. <br /> Bourquin stated the life expectancy of this type of struc~ure is 7 to lO years. <br /> the 40 ft. height is necessary for tennis, the structure remains in place <br /> between September l5th and May 15th each year, and he is considering a <br /> translucent type dome that has the cables embedded in the fabric. <br /> Commission discussed the features of the translucent dome; questioned if light <br /> would affect neighbors during the evening hours. <br /> Bourquin advised he is still researching the translucent dome; he suggested he <br /> could return next summer to review the plans with the Commission. <br /> Commission consensus was that it was not necessary to return with the plans. <br /> Moved by Zehm. seconded by Martin. that Commission <br /> recommend to Council approval of: <br /> l. Two additional tennis courts. <br /> 2. Proposed parking lot expansion, with removal of the south access and <br /> re-orientation of the parking lot as proposed by Planner. <br /> 3. A 5 ft. height variance for the air-supported structure based on expansion <br /> of an existing use established under a previous ordinance. <br /> . 4. Conditioned upon the building permit being issued for the life of the <br /> air-supported structure, Or lO years, whichever is shorter and <br /> reapplication for the building permit is required before replacement. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) <br /> CASE #87-l9; MINOR The Planner reviewed his report of May 28th, relative <br /> SUBD. & SITE PLAN to the application for.a Minor Subdivision and Site <br /> REVIEW. HWY. 96, Plan review for a proposed day care center on Highway <br /> CONSTRUCTION 70 96, adjacent to the Village public works building. <br /> Miller advised the 5.6-acre parcel currently consists of two separate lots; in <br /> order to accommodate the day care center, the owner is proposing to split the <br /> west 220 feet from the existing west lot. He stated the day care center lot <br /> dimensions would be 220' x 279'. which exceeds all ordinance requirements for <br /> the lot area. He recommended that the remainder of the lot should be <br /> consolidated with the east lot, since it will be only 70 ft. in width and below <br /> the minimum permitted by ordinance. <br /> The Planner noted that the mansard roof parapet treatment is not continuous <br /> across the rear of the building; recommends that the mansard roof be made <br /> continuous across the rear of the building. for the sake of appearance from the <br /> adjacent residences. He also advised that because the residences are at a <br /> higher elevation than the day care center, additional screening of the larger <br /> rooftop units may be required. <br /> . Miller explained the day. care center development proposes a single access point <br /> to Highway 96, centered on the east property line, and this driveway will also <br /> serve the future development to the east. He advised the driveway location had <br /> been reviewed by the City's traffic engineer and has been determined acceptable <br /> in terms of sight distances and separation from the Hamline/Highway 96 <br /> intersection. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.