CCP 10-12-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 16 . unit would be self-contained. Councilmember Malone asked how much fuel the generator would hold. Mr. Reimers stated that the generator would hold 43 gallons of diesel fuel. Councilmember Malone stated that he understood the applicant's argument regarding the screening of the generator. However, he was hesitant due to another upcoming Planning Case in which the generator will be placed in thc front yard, The City Council must be careful not to set a precedence allowing generators to not be screened. In this case, there were unique circumstances that may eliminate the need for the required screening. Mayor Probst agreed with Councilmember Malone that there were unique circumstances involved. The location of the generator would be within the loading dock area and he was not sure that the self~contained generator would be less attractive than the trucks in the area. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #99-17, Site Plan, to allow for the construction of a 4 foot 3 inch by 12 foot 9 1/2 inch generator, subject to the following conditions: 1. The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for servicing, or for the duration of a power failure, The generator be placed as close as possible to the building and transformcr that the Building Code will allow. A minimum of two protective bollards be placed to protect the generator. 2, . 3. Councilmember Malone noted that the Planning Commission had not required the screening of the generator as recommended by staff. He suggested that a statement be added to the motion explaining that the reasons the screening was not being required in this Planning Case was due to the unique circumstances that the generator would be in the loading dock area and it would be shielded from public view by its enclosure and location, Since the City Council was not requiring screening that was required by the Ordinance, Councilmember Larson asked if the Planning Case would require a variance. Ms. Randall stated that, although a variance would be required, approving the Planning Case as moved would be acceptable. Councilmember Larson asked if it should be identified within the motion that the City Council was granting a variance. Ms, Randall stated that this information could be added to the motion. However, this would be reflected in the meeting minutes, Councilmember Malone noted that Guidant Corporation was leasing their space within the building, He asked, if the City Council approved the generator, who would approval be granted to. Ms, Randall stated that the approval would be granted to the parcel. If Guidant were to leave the building, a new tenant could install a generator in the same location while abiding by the same conditions as the applicant. . Councilmember Larson asked that staff include language in the motion that this was a variance that was being granted due to the unique circumstances as described by Councilmember Malone,