|
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 25. 1997
<br />
<br />5
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />height variance (42 feet proposed, when 35 feet is allowed). This silo will make the operation of
<br />the plant more efficient, but is not expected to increase production.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ringwald showed overheads of the existing and proposed silos, and the screening to be
<br />provided. The Planning Commission at their August 6, 1997 meeting, required that additional
<br />screening in the form of evergreen trees be provided. The Planning Commission also
<br />recommend approval of the height variance and the site plan review at this meeting.
<br />
<br />Mayor Probst requested clarification that the proposed silo will look identical to the existing one.
<br />Mr. Ringwald stated that was correct.
<br />
<br />MOTION:
<br />
<br />Malone moved and Hicks seconded a motion to approve the height variance and
<br />site plan review in Planning Case #97-16, contingent upon the applicant
<br />complying with the Planning Commission recommendations for screening. The
<br />motion carried unanimously (5-0).
<br />
<br />A-3. Planning Case #97-18, Zoning Ordinance Modification - City of Arden Hills
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ringwald stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments to the
<br />following ordinances: VI, C, I, a; VI, C, I, d; VI, C, 2, a; VI, E, 4, c; VI, G, 3, a(2); VI, G, 6, a;
<br />and IX, A, 2; and to defer action on recommendations for the following ordinances: VI, E, 4, d
<br />and VI, F, I, e. If the City Council is supportive of the proposed modifications to the Zoning
<br />Ordinance, then the City Attorney should be directed to prepare the ordinance for Council's
<br />approval, which would incorporate these changes into the Zoning Ordinance. The Staff
<br />anticipates bringing sections VI,E,4,d and VI,F,I,c to the Planning Commission in October rather
<br />than September, due to the changes suggested requiring a republication of the Public Hearing
<br />notice.
<br />
<br />Councilmember Malone stated he was under the impression that this revision of section VI, F, I,
<br />c (Building Standards) requires that all driveways be paved. Mr. Ringwald stated it does require
<br />that driveways be paved, except for single and two-family homes.
<br />
<br />Councilmember Malone inquired regarding the 30% open for air flow requirement, stating the
<br />original intent was to not have solid fences. He stated variances have been denied for solid
<br />walls, but other sections in the Code permit walls.
<br />
<br />Councilmember Malone stated he is hesitant to approve deletion ofthe 30% open for air flow
<br />requirement. Mr. Ringwald stated this ordinance could be pulled and brought back for further
<br />discussion.
<br />
<br />Mayor Probst inquired if the recodification would be a separate action by Council. Mr.
<br />Fritsinger replied it would be separate.
<br />
<br />. Mr. Ringwald stated his preference to discuss the Code regarding walls at a later date.
<br />
|