Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 <br /> <br /> <br />iT.','~ l."'fr <br />~' Ii <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. tit <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 rnatch <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 />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 />e <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 />Mayor Probst stated that he would wish the Council to note that the area is a business district and <br />not a warehouse district. He added that the City is currently working with another developer for <br />a much higher level of development on adjacent sites, noting that strict requirements should e <br />