CCP 09-13-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , . e . ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 Chair Erickson asked ifthere would be offices on adjacent properties that would view the proposed generator. Ms. Randall stated that most adjacent offices were to the west. However, there were some offices to the south that bend partially to the front of the building. Chair Erickson confirmed that since the proposed location of the generator was the loading dock, this area would not be included in the parking count. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Chair Erickson stated that the loading dock would be a convenient location for the proposed generator. He noted that if a number of requests were made in the future for generators, certain restrictions will apply. Since the proposed generator will not be viewed from the street, Chair Erickson requested confirmation that screening had been proposed for the building to the south. Ms. Randall stated that this was correct. Mr. Dave Reimers, Guidant Corporation, stated that the company chose a generator that would be enclosed to avoid the need for screening. Commissioner Sand asked ifthe generator was being installed to protect against Y2K concerns. Mr. Riley stated that the generator was being installed for business continuity. The Round Lake facility must remain operational during any power outages. With regard to condition number two, Commissioner Sand stated that the wording suggested that the five hours per month limitation applied to both servicing and power failures. Ms. Randall stated that the limitations were meant to be separate. Commissioner Sand suggested that condition number two be changed to read: "The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for servicing or for the duration of any power failure." Commissioner Baker noted that staff was recommending that the enclosed generator be screened, while the transformer was not required to be screened. He asked staffto explain why these two items were being treated differently. Ms. Randall stated that the City Ordinance was vague on whether or not a generator required screening. Commissioner Baker asked, if the Planning Commission were to allow an un-screened generator, would it be setting a precedence for future requests. Ms. Randall stated that qualifiers could be included in this Planning Case that the generator cannot be seen from the roadway and that it was in an appropriate location near other types of operating equipment. Commissioner Baker asked how much the screening would cost if required. Mr. Riley stated that he was not sure the exact cost for screening, however the project was approximately $130,000. Commissioner Baker stated that considering the cost of the project, the screening would seem insignificant. Mr. Riley stated that the concern was that the there would be no value added if unnecessary screening was included. Chair Erickson asked ifthe qualifies for not requiring screening must be included in the motion. Ms. Randall stated that having this information included in the meeting minutes was sufficient. Commissioner Sand noted that because the building forms a C shape, this would help to screen the proposed generator as well.