My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-21-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
05-10-21-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2021 3:56:15 PM
Creation date
5/6/2021 3:54:41 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.
/
115
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 CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 26, 2021 22 <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy stated the college would be replacing the existing scoreboard with a new <br />scoreboard that had video technology. He noted the existing scoreboard was 20 feet high and 20 <br />feet wide. He understood the new scoreboard would be 25 feet high and 25 feet wide. He reported <br />the back of the scoreboard would face the railroad tracks and residential area. He indicated the <br />existing scoreboard was approximately 240 feet from the property line and the new scoreboard <br />would be about 35 feet closer to the SRC building. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant questioned what the City’s timeline was for approval. <br /> <br />Planning Consultant Kansier explained the 60 day time limit for this request ends May 23, <br />2021. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant inquired if the Council wants to move forward with this item. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott stated he did not understand what the Council was debating given the fact <br />one of the conditions for approval required the project to conform with all City Code <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes reported she did not understand what the Council was being asked to <br />approve. She understood these plans were provided to the City but staff has since changed. She <br />expressed concern with the fact the Council had zero information regarding the scoreboard and <br />would like clarification on this matter. She stated the Council was used to receiving complete <br />presentations on Planning Cases and what was being requested. She supported this matter being <br />tabled to allow for a more complete presentation to be made to the City Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden agreed stating she would like to find out more information about the <br />scoreboard, the fencing height, etc. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes recommended action on this item be tabled to the next City Council <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy stated the perimeter fence would be a black six foot high chain link fence. He <br />understood the presentation needed to be more succinct but he didn’t see where he was at fault. <br />He reported he has a very defined construction schedule and he has to get this project completed <br />this summer. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked if the Council would be open to discussing this one item at a Special City <br />Council meeting. He then noted the Council had met the time limit for their meeting extension <br />and asked if the Council wanted to take action on this items this evening or delay them both to a <br />Special City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Scott supported the Council taking action on Items C and D at this meeting. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes stated she wanted to accommodate the applicant, but she would much <br />appreciate a detailed presentation on this item 10C and 10D at a Special City Council meeting <br />given the late hour. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.