My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
03-10-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/7/2014 1:04:45 PM
Creation date
3/7/2014 1:04:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Approved: <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA <br />REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />FEBRUARY 10, 2014 <br />7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS <br /> <br /> <br />CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL <br /> <br /> <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City <br />Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Present: <br /> Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave <br />McClung, and Ed Werner <br /> <br />Absent: <br /> None <br /> <br />Also present <br /> : City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Assistant City Engineer John Anderson; <br />Park and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate <br />Planner Matthew Bachler; and Finance Analyst Kyle Howard <br /> <br />PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE <br /> <br />1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA <br /> <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a <br />motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried <br />unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL <br /> <br /> <br />Jack Perry <br />, Briggs & Morgan representing TAT Properties, discussed the recent PUD <br />Amendment denial in Planning Case 13-017 that the Council would be confirming this evening. <br />He reported that he submitted a letter to the City this afternoon regarding this matter. He <br />reviewed the concerns of the applicant and questioned why the Council did not address the <br />conditions for approval at its previous meeting. He explained that his client supported 22 of the <br />making process. He reported that the building size and traffic concerns were not grounds for <br />denial of the PUD. Mr. Perry anticipated that this matter will proceed to the court of appeals. He <br />recommended that the Council reconsider the decision made on the PUD or that action be tabled <br />to a future meeting. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.