Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 25,2000 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated it would be desirable to have all the screening match, She <br />. added it would be preferable not to require that the applicant go through the process again, <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that the fence in the photograph is a chain link fence with vertical <br />polymer slats, He noted that the space between the slats does not completely mask the <br />equipment. Mr. Hill stated that a better grade fencing could be installed, Mayor Probst stated <br />that double slats would increase the density of the fence, <br /> <br />Ms, Ortley stated that the property owners would prefer a chain link fence with vinyl screening <br />which is easier for maintenance than wood, She added that the height of the equipment is <br />prohibitive, She noted the owners would prefer to install identical screening on all the units, <br /> <br />Ms, Chaput stated the Planning Commission was unsure whether the previous case could be <br />amended, Mr. Lynch stated it might not be advisable to alter the previous case, citing a planning <br />case in which a fencing variance was sought and the Council required cement blocks to match <br />the building, He added it might be preferable to provide complete screening with the cedar <br />fencing previously approved, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated that the case to which Mr. Lynch referred was on a very <br />visible corner, adding this case pertains to a warehouse site, She noted she would support a <br />chain link fence with vinyl webbing, as well as amending the previous case to reflect that <br />identical fencing would be used on all units, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he would support a chain link system with vinyl slats, He added he would <br />be uncomfortable taking action on this case without knowing exactly what type and grade of <br />fencing the applicant would instalL Ms, Chaput stated the City has the right to extend the case <br />60 days to December 5, 2000, for final action, <br /> <br />Ms, Ortley stated that the tenant in question is interested in expediting their move, and a delay by <br />the Council until December would significantly hurt their operations, She suggested that staff. <br />approval of screening could be specified once the tenant determines the type of screening <br />desired, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst asked why the all the enclosures were not included in the same request to ensure <br />conformity with regard to screening, Ms, Ortley stated that her predecessor, Donna Becker of <br />Welsh Companies handled the previous planning case, before United Properties took over <br />ownership, <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated that since the area is a warehouse district, a chain link fence system <br />would be appropriate and reasonable, He added he would support approving the screening <br />conditioned upon staff approvaL <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst noted to Council that the area is a business district and not a warehouse district. <br />He added that the City is currently working with another developer for a much higher level of <br />development on adjacent sites, noting that strict requirements should continue to be imposed in <br />