CCP 11-08-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25, 1999 D~~AFT 8 bollards along the sidewalk to protect the building and the proposal would continue these bollards around the generator. e Councilmember Aplikowski stated that she did not have a problem with approving a cedar wood fence in this particular case, and in this location. She indicated that block walls do not always work as well as one may think. Based on personal experience, it was her belief that a block wall tends to be more of a maintenance issue than a wood fence. Councilmember Rem concurred with Councilmember Aplikowski. She indicated that this issue had been discussed by the Planning Commission and the result had been the approval of the cedar wood fence. She felt that, since the screening would have to be so large, a block wall would appear as an addition to the building. The fence would be easier to maintain and repair and, since the facility is leased, the enclosure may not be a long-term need. MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion to approve 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 cedar wood fence enclosure, along with a 13 foot variance with the following conditions: L The cedar wood fence be painted to match the color of the existing building. The generator only be run a maximum of five hours per month for servicing or during the duration of power failures. The temporary generator on a trailer be removed. e 2. 3. Mayor Probst stated that he would vote against the motion as he felt the City Council should be approving a different sort of enclosure. He added that the motion should include the findings of facts for approval of the corner side yard setback variance found in the staff report dated October 25, 1999. Councilmembers Aplikowski and Rem agreed. The motion failed (2-2, Mayor Probst and Councilmember Larson opposed). Since the installation of the generator was something the applicant must move forward with, Mayor Probst asked if the applicant was prepared to suggest any options. Mr. Beck suggested that, since the request for variance was approved, and the only remaining issue was the nature of the enclosure, he be allowed to move forward with the placement of the permanent generator with temporary screening and install the permanent screening once that decision is made. He noted that the installation of the screening would be a separate effort by a different contractor than the installation of the generator. Mayor Probst stated that nothing in this Planning Case had been approved since the motion for approval failed. He believed that the Council was inclined to approve the variance request. However, if the applicant were allowed to proceed as suggested, he would have to be willing to install a block wall, if that is what is approved, or be subject to the removal of the generator. e