My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-29-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CC 04-29-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/24/2024 9:38:40 AM
Creation date
11/16/2015 4:39:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 29, 2002 6 <br />. <br />• <br />n <br />� <br />planning process. He stated the residents were concerned that they were going to also lose the <br />tennis courts. <br />Pat Kern, 1230 Wyncrest Court, expressed concern about the variance of 23 feet and that they <br />should have the building at 55 feet as required by Code. He stated it appeared Guidant was <br />making the assumption that the road would be vacated. He stated Guidant was a good neighbor. <br />Brad Kressler, 1251 Wyncrest Court, asked if they had looked if the new road would be <br />compatible to Fernwood being lost. <br />Mayor Probst stated the City had made a commitment either directly or indirectly with regard to <br />what their anticipated plans were and they would give the residents the opportunity to comment <br />about the plans. He stated this was not an approval of the vacation of Fernwood. He stated he <br />believed the Training Center could be built on that site. He indicated he was comfortable with <br />the approval of the Training Center site plan and the variances as approved, but stated they did <br />have work to do still with any street vacation. <br />Council Member Larson stated the residents had concerns about the height of the buildings, but <br />he believed this building was fairly consistent with the other building, and he believed this <br />building was as far away from the neighborhood as possible. He stated he would support this <br />proposal. <br />Council Member Aplikowski stated one of the concerns she was hearing was how would this <br />impact Cummings Park. Mr. Parrish stated this was a misconception that was out there at this <br />point, but he assured this was in no way related to Cummings Park. Going forward it would alter <br />access if the vacation proceeded forward, but in terms of parking, that issue had been resolved by <br />the Parks Department. He stated there was a solid easement in terms of parking, so it was <br />unlikely the tennis courts would be eliminated. There was sufficient parking available. <br />MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Grant seconded a <br />motion to authorize Planning Case 02-05, Guidant, Site Plan Review/Variance <br />Request subj ect to findings and conditions. <br />Council Member Rem asked for clarification on the platting process <br />was in the process of preparing their Master PUD and they were <br />their parcels into one parcel. He stated this was a few months out <br />stated this information was also available on the City's website. <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br />D. Planning Case 02-06: Pilgrim House, Special Use Permit <br />. Mr. Parrish replied Guidant <br />looking to consolidate all of <br />, at a minimum. Mr. Parrish <br />Mr. Parrish explained applicant was requesting an amendment to their existing Special Use <br />Permit to allow a daycare facility at Pilgrim House. The Planning Commission recommended <br />denial of the requesting finding the proposed use of the Church was an accessory operation that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.