CCP 11-08-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . It ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 25,1999 DRAFT 9 Mr. Beck stated that he was willing to comply with the decision made by the City Council. He added that he would be willing to leave the temporary generator in place until the end of the year. Mayor Probst asked staff if additional problems would be created in the future if the Council were to move forward as suggested by the applicant. Ms. Randall stated a condition could be placed to allow the applicant to move forward with the generator placement, with the final decision on screening pending further discussions at a future meeting. She suggested that a time line for resolution be set, such as two months. Councilmember Aplikowski confirmed that the applicant has a temporary generator at this time. Mr. Beck stated that this was correct. If the Council were to decide to not take further action until after the end of the year, Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant could operate until that time with the temporary generator. Mr. Beck stated that this would be possible. Mr. Apple pointed out that, if the decision is delayed, there would be the issue of installing the enclosure in frozen ground. He stated that the applicant was fully capable of operating as they are now and, if the installation of the permanent generator with a block wall is delayed into the winter time, the temporary generator and trailer may have to remain where it is until the spring thaw. Mayor Probst stated that if the Council did take action to allow the applicant to proceed, with an understanding that the screening must be installed, it would not be acceptable for the project to be delayed for months. Councilmember Larson stated that, if the City Council was not prepared to approve the entire request, they should not approve a portion of it. He pointed out that footings will be required for both a cedar wood fence as well as a block wall. He did not understand what would be gained by not waiting for a tie breaking vote. Mayor Probst asked under what basis the temporary generator had been approved. Ms. Randall explained that staff allowed the applicant to place a temporary generator on-site while they were going through this process. One condition ofthis was that there be no complaints about the appearance of the generator or noise. She indicated that there have been no complaints about the temporary generator which has been operated. Mr. Post pointed out that, per page two of the staff report, the City Council has a deadline for action of November 9, 1999. This would allow the Council to stay this action until the next City Council meeting. Mayor Probst noted that, when a motion fails, it typically requires a vote from the majority side to reconsider the case. Since this motion failed by a tie, he asked what action would have to be taken to table the Planning Case. Mr. Post stated that another motion would have to be made to carry the case over to the next City Council meeting. Mayor Probst asked if a motion must be made to reconsider the failed Planning Case. Counci1member Aplikowski stated that this was not necessary.