My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02856
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2800
>
pf_02856
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 12:16:47 PM
Creation date
12/8/2004 1:22:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2856
Planning Files - Type
Variance
Address
2660 CIVIC CENTER DR
Applicant
ACI FENCE
PIN
122923310086
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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 />~ <br /> <br />D.~~ <br />~~.F <br /> <br /> <br />July 17, 1996 <br /> <br />Mr. Dan McCarthy <br />Plant Manager <br />Advance Circuits, Inc. <br />1633 Terrace Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br /> <br />Dear Dan: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Additional Fence Request <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />At the July 15, 1996 City Council meeting, the issue of a fence extension along the north <br />side of the ACI plant on Terrace Drive was reviewed. The discussion of the Council <br />focused on what would be the appropriate role of the City in the review process and <br />reasons why (or why not) ACI needs a variance to allow a 16 foot high fence. <br /> <br />Please know that an important part of this issue is the role that the City plays in the <br />process. The City cannot be both a partner with you in this variance application, ~nd at the <br />same time the deciding authority which grants the variance. The City needs to remain at <br />arms length in this relationship because of our legal role. As such, ACI needs to step <br />forward as sole applicant. <br /> <br />Two unanswered questions about the variance were raised by the City Council: <br /> <br />1. If ACI js violating the State noise standards (as studies would indicate), there needs <br />to bf:! corrective action. What alternatives have been investigated to mitigate the <br />noise to adjoining property owners and bring the ACI building and operations into <br />conformance with the State and local noise standards? Has baffling on the building, <br />different equipment, a new parapet wall been considered? Was new equipment <br />placed on the roof in the past 18 months which exacerbates the problem? <br /> <br />2. Why is a variance needed? What is the physical hardship that precludes ACI from <br />meeting the State and City standard, and how will that be described in the fence <br />height variance that the Planning Commission and City Council will see in upcoming <br />meetings? <br /> <br />2(,' ,i; UYIC CE~1'ER m{]\'E . R()~E\'ILLE · ~II~~E~OT.\ · SS 11.\-1,",' 1'1 <br />()12--FIO-2200 · 1'DD (>>12--l')(\-220S <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.