My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-25-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 09-25-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:15 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:26:04 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.
/
81
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 />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - September 6, 2000 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Acting Chair Nelson expressed concern that the fencing will not be the same height as the <br />oxidizer. He added he would wish the screening requirements to be tightened for future <br />enforcement. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Commissioner Galatowitsch expressed concern that four separate units could be screened in <br />different ways. She stated she would wish all the units to be screened in a consistent manner. <br />She added that since the Commission could not go back and make them consistent, it would be <br />necessary to do whatever was done before to ensure consistency. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Nelson asked whether the applicant might resubmit their proposal for the previous <br />planning case if wire and vinyl fencing were approved in this case. Mr. Hall stated that would <br />not be a problem. Acting Chair Nelson stated he was inquiring whether the applicant might <br />consider resubmittal after approval is granted. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Nelson asked whether screening was approved recently for the other buildings on <br />site in the last few years. Ms. Chaput stated screening might have been included under Planning <br />Case #97-06. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated the applicant can consider re-applying for approval to change the <br />requirements for other on-site screening and ensure consistency. <br /> <br />Mr. Bulich asked whether his company can operate the equipment before a final decision is made <br />by the Council. Ms. Chaput stated it might be an issue for the building inspector as screening .- <br />was a requirement of approval. Commissioner Sand stated the applicant can not legally operate ., <br />the equipment until Council approval is granted as the planning case involves both placement <br />and screening ofthe equipment. He added the Council meets September 25,2000. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes, to recommend approval of <br />Planning Case #00-31, PUD Amendment, 1887 Gateway Boulevard, for the addition of a make- <br />up air unit and a chiller condenser, with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Screening ofthe make-up air unit and chiller condenser must be constructed of fencing of <br />a height equal to the equipment being screened, and have opaque vinyl material of a color <br />similar to the wall of the building, subject to approval by City staff. <br />2. Application for a building permit must be made, meeting all building/fire code <br />regulations. <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />This Planning Case will be reviewed at the Monday, September 25, 2000, City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Nelson requested that Ms. Chaput review the previons planning case to determine <br />whether the height of the required fencing was stipulated. He added that appropriate measures <br />should be taken ifno height was specified. <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.