My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-10-14-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
02-10-14-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2014 10:55:37 AM
Creation date
3/13/2014 12:47:27 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.
/
11
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
- R EN,HILLS <br /> Approved: March 10, 2014 <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 /> CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL <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 /> Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave <br /> McClung, and Ed Werner <br /> Absent: None <br /> Also present: 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 /> PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE <br /> 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA <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 /> 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIESANFORMATIONAL <br /> Jack Perry, 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 /> 24 conditions as recommended by staff. He then discussed the Council's defects in their decision <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.