My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 05-26-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CC 05-26-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:09 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:51:25 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.
/
8
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 />Minutes of the Regular.uncil Meeting, May 26, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />ASSMTS. (CONT'D) Council requested the Clerk Administrator explore the <br />zoning classification possibilities for recreational <br />areas with Planner Miller; discuss with the State Senator and Representative <br />exactly what provisions are allowed by law for this type of land use <br />classification and report back to Council at a future meeting. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />HWY.96 PLANNING <br />MTG. REPORT <br /> <br />Thomas Mulcahy, 3530 Siems Court, reported on the <br />Highway 96 Corridor Planning Committee meeting. Mulcahy <br />advised that the development of Highway 96 would <br />probably begin on the east end of the Highway, in the White Bear Lake Area, and <br />it this time Arden Hills should closely watch the development process by <br />continuing to attend the meetings. He also stated the meetings are very <br />informative and presented the Clerk Administrator with the State Report for the <br />office files. Mulcahy added that the Council should give careful consideration <br />before approving any additional access points along Highway 96'over the next <br />few years. The next meeting will be held on 6/25/87, 7:30 p.m., Shoreview City <br />Hall. <br /> <br />Council thanked Mulcahy for his interest and information. <br /> <br />CASE NO. 87-14; <br />SETBACK VARIANCE <br />ALPO FOODS, INC. <br /> <br />Council was referred to the Board of Appeals minutes <br />5/28/87, recommending approval of the ~ear Setback, <br />Variance for Alpo Foods, Inc. <br /> <br />Harvey Stewart, General Manager of Alpo Foods, appeared before the Council to <br />answer questions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council discussed the proposed location for the addition which will house the <br />tallow for storage and processing. Stewart explained that the Engineering <br />consultant hired by Alpo had studied the placement of the addition to determine <br />the best location for processing. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There was discussion relative to height of the addition, plantings, tallow <br />processing and odor emission. Stewart advised the company had purchased a <br />charcoal filtering system that meets EPA standards to alleviate odors from the <br />processing at the plant. Mayor Woodburn noted that Arden Hills does have an <br />odor inspector and his standards are based on the EPA standards for odor <br />emission. <br /> <br />Councilmember Winiecki advised she is not convinced the addition must be placed <br />in this location; she illustrated how the addition could be located so that a <br />variance would not be necessary. <br /> <br />Hansen moved, seconded by Sather, that Council approve <br />Case No. 87-14, Site Plan Review and Setback Variance, Alpo Foods, Inc., based <br />on the Board of Appeals unanimously recommending approval and their reasons <br />listed in the minutes of 5/21/87: 1. The General Manager's assurance that the <br />system is sealed and should not emit additional odors; 2. The new tallow <br />processing promotes better safety inside the plant; 3. The applicant has . <br />provided plantings to screen the building from adjacent residences; 4. The 50 <br />ft. public pedestrian walkway provides additional separation from the adjacent <br />residential lots; and 5. The fact that the zoning boundary line was moved to <br />the applicant's property line, due to the City obtaining the 50 ft. easement <br />for a pedestrian pathway, necessitating the variance request. Motion carried. <br />(Hansen, Sather, Peck voting in favor; Winiecki and Woodburn opposed) (3-2) <br /> <br />In discussion, Councilmember Winiecki stated that although the reasons listed <br />in the motion are reasonable; it is her opinion that there is no necessity for <br />a variance request if the tank placement was moved to the location she <br />illustrated. <br /> <br />Councilmember Sather commented that the Engineering Consultant for Alpo has <br />designed the location of the tank in immediate' proximity to where it is used <br />and it is his opinion that it would not be reasonable for Council to place <br />restrictions on the design. He stated that if the Alpo company were planning a <br />major expansion in the future which would change the interior design of the <br />plant, Council could request the applicant to move the addition in conjunction <br />with that expansion to an area that would conform without a variance. <br /> <br />Harvey Stewart explained that the location of the addition is more accessible ... <br />for deliveries and better facilitates snow plowing. ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.