Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> - <br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 1-3-90 <br />Page 2 <br /> . <br />CASE 1189-20 (Cont'd) Member Woodburn questioned how high the antenna would <br /> protrude above the roof-line of the building. <br />Bergly stated it would be approximately 7 or 8 ft. above the roof. . <br />Chairman Probst asked for comments from the members relative to which location <br />would be preferable for the antenna. <br />Woodburn stated the site may appear less cluttered if the antenna is mounted on <br />the roof. <br />McGraw commented the antenna should be properly screened; the location was not as <br />important ,as proper screening of the antenna. <br />Martin commented that a roof-mounted antenna may be difficult to screen; <br />questioned if the antenna will be visible from Highway 96. <br />Planner Bergly stated he did not believe the antenna would be visible from <br />Highway 96 except from the bridge. <br />Petersen questioned what type of screening could be required. <br />Bergly stated the Commission may recommend the specific type of screening by <br />landscaping or other methods if a roof-mounted antenna is specified as desirable. <br />He explained if Commission requires screening on all four sides of the antenna it <br />would preclude locating the antenna on the roof. <br />There was discussion regarding other sites in this area and if this antenna <br />location wil]_ set a precedent. . <br />The Planner stated he was not aware of any other dish antennae in this area; one <br />community he surveyed requires all dishes over 3 ft. be ground-mounted. He noted <br />the Commission has discussion requirements for dishes relative to setbacks no <br />closer than the building setback and screening of the antenna. <br />Chairman Probst commented it may be preferable to locate the antenna on the <br />ground and provide further amenities on the site by landscaping. <br />Planner Bergly agreed and noted the roof mount would require an "artificial!! type <br />of screening for the antenna rather than adding an amenity to the site with <br />landscaping for screening purposes. <br /> Petersen moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Commission <br />recommend to council approval of Case #89-20, a Special Use Permit to allow a <br />six-foot satellite antenna at 4444 Round Lake Road West, W.W. Graingers, to be <br />located in the diagram provided by Planner Bergly as the preferable location in <br />his report dated 12-6-89, contingent upon: 1. The submission of detailed plans <br />illustrating the dish will not be visible from properties or from public streets <br />and highways, and 2. The plans to show how landscaping, for screening purposes, <br />will be installed to effectively eliminate view of the dish, such plans to be <br />approved by the Planner. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0) <br />UNDEVELOPED LAND Planner Bergly referred Commission to the "Undeveloped <br />DECEMBER 1989 Land Mapl! which is prepared annually for review. He noted . <br /> the primary purpose of the map was for the park Committee <br />to better estimate the potential for future park dedication land and it is also <br />used by potential developers to determine possible development sites. <br />