Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 9 <br /> . Mr. Beck stated that he was willing to comply with the decision made by the City CounciL He <br /> added that he would be willing to leave the temporary generator in place until the end of the year. <br /> Mayor Probst asked staff if additional problems would be created in the future if the Council <br /> were to move forward as suggested by the applicant. Ms, Randall stated a condition could be <br /> placed to allow the applicant to move forward with the generator placement, with the final <br /> decision on screening pending further discussions at a future meeting. She suggested that a <br /> time1ine for resolution be set, such as two months. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the applicant has a temporary generator at this time, <br /> Mr. Beck stated that this was correct. If the Council were to decide to not take further action <br /> until after the end of the year, Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant could operate <br /> until that time with the temporary generator, Mr. Beck stated that this would be possible, <br /> Mr. Apple pointed out that, if the decision is delayed, there would be the issue of installing the <br /> enclosure in frozen ground. He stated that the applicant was fully capable of operating as they <br /> are now and, if the installation of the permanent generator with a block wall is delayed into the <br /> winter time, the temporary generator and trailer may have to remain where it is until the spring <br /> thaw. <br /> Mayor Probst stated that if the Council did take action to allow the applicant to proceed, with an <br /> understanding that the screening must be installed, it would not be acceptable for the project to <br /> . be delayed for months. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated that, if the City Council was not prepared to approve the entire <br /> request, they should not approve a portion of it He pointed out that footings will be required for <br /> both a cedar wood fence as well as a block wall. He did not understand what would be gained by <br /> not waiting for a tie breaking vote. <br /> Mayor Probst asked under what basis the temporary generator had been approved, Ms, Randall <br /> explained that staff allowed the applicant to place a temporary generator on-site while they were <br /> going through tl1is process. One condition of this was tlmt there be no complaints about the <br /> appearance of the generator or noise. She indicated tl1at there have been no complaints about the <br /> temporary generator which has been operated. <br /> Mr. Post pointed out that, per page two of the staffreport, the City Council has a deadline for <br /> action of Novembcr 9, 1999, This would allow the Council to stay this action until the next City <br /> Council meeting. <br /> Mayor Probst noted that, when a motion fails, it typically requires a vote from the majority side <br /> to reconsider the case. Since this motion failed by a tie, he asked what action would have to be <br /> taken to table the Planning Case, Mr. Post stated that another motion would have to be made to <br /> carry the case over to the next City Council meeting. Mayor Probst asked if a motion must be <br /> . made to reconsider the failed Planning Case. Councilmember Aplikowski stated that this was <br /> not necessary. <br /> -- <br />