Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – AUGUST 31, 2015 10 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant suggested that discussion by the Council be limited to the City Attorney’s <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woodburn did not believe City Code should have dissonant matters and for <br />that reason recommended that the definitions be further clarified. It was his opinion that the <br />current code language was extremely confusing when defining accessory and secondary uses. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik advised that some of the definitions within the Code were fairly broad. <br />He explained that he could further wordsmith the Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung inquired if the City Attorney believed his proposed changes provided <br />sufficient clarity for the regulation of cellular antennas. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik believed this to be the case, but stated that he would be more than happy <br />to address the dissonant matters brought up by Councilmember Woodburn. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant was not in favor of unwrapping the entire City Code and its current definitions. <br />For that reason, he supported staff’s recommendation. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung supported the City Attorney’s code amendments as well. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woodburn deferred this issue to the remaining City Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden supported the City Attorney and his recommendation. <br /> <br />MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to <br />support the recommendations of the City Attorney regarding the regulation of <br />cellular antennas. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woodburn questioned the approval process for the revision of the cellular <br />antenna regulations in the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the Zoning Code amendment process with the Council. He <br />commented that the Planning Commission would hold a public hearing and make a <br />recommendation to the City Council on this matter. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woodburn did not believe that the proposed revisions were technical enough to <br />require a hearing in October. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik suggested a hearing be held in November after additional review by staff. <br /> <br />The motion carried (5-0). <br /> <br />9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br /> <br />None. <br />