CCP 11-08-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e DRAFT 5 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 would reside entirely on the sidewalk at the loading dock. With the enclosure, the unit would stick out further into the driveway, however, an acceptable drive will be maintained. The applicant intends to place bollards to protect the screening and generator from damage. The applicant preferred the cedar wood fence; however, has stated that they feel it would look just as good without screening due to the enclosure. They would then add skirting to the bottom of the enclosure. Stafffound circumstances unique to the property in that the property is bordered by public right- of-way on three sides creating a relatively small buildable area for this site. The applicant lists several other sites that they have considered which would all require variances. This site is adjacent to the junction box which is where the generator is connected to the building. The next best option would be on the north side of the parking area; however, the only benefit is that the generator may be easier to screen. The applicant has noted it would be difficult to connect the generator to the junction box from that location. The applicant took great steps to find an alternative location. The generator is as far from the property line as it can be without taking out parking spaces. Per Code requirement, the applicant is willing to screen the generator with a 10 foot high cedar wood fence or an alternative option. Ms. Randall advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Case #99-12, Site Plan, to allow for the construction of a 5 foot 6 inch by 13 foot 6 inch generator and 13 by 25 foot fence enclosure, along with a 13 foot variance, with the following conditions: 1. The cedar wood fence be painted to match the color of the existing building. 2. The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for servicing or during the duration of power failures. 3. The temporary generator on a trailer be removed. Having reviewed the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, Councilmember Aplikowski felt that the only reason the applicant preferred the cedar wood fence versus a block wall was a matter of cost. Ms. Randall stated another reason for the cedar wood fence was for the ability of snow to flow through where a block wall would trap the snow. She indicated that the applicant was available to address this issue. Mayor Probst asked that the applicant address the screening issue. He noted that the Planning Commission had considered a block enclosure screening option to match the building. In this location, he felt that this would make sense and he was inclined to suggest the construction of a block wall over a cedar wood fence. Mr. Robert Beck, Head of Operations for Midway Bank, St. Paul, stated that the cedar wood fence had been his second choice other than having the unit placed on the sidewalk without remote screening. The intent had been to utilize the decorative panels that are in place on the unit with skirting around the bottom. In his opinion, this would be the least noticeable option. Because of the clearance required around the unit, a cedar wood fence will more than double the footprint of the unit and the use of a block wall would add an additional foot to that footprint.