Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – APRIL 26, 2021 21 <br /> <br /> <br />field, the practice field and the lighting. She stated she too was confused as to what was being <br />approved. <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy reported he was surprised by this conversation. He explained he has had his plans <br />into the City since February and noted a neighborhood meeting was held. He indicated he has <br />answered questions of staff and everything was spelled out in the plans. He stated he was not <br />trying to hide anything within this project. He commented the lighting was typically the issue that <br />requires the most investigation but noted all foot candle information had been provided to the <br />City. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden agreed the Council had the plans, but did not understand why staff was <br />stating Bethel would not be moving forward with some aspects of the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy indicated in this instance, staff was incorrect. He noted the information was <br />presented correctly at the Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Planning Consultant Kansier explained she does not have plans for the scoreboard. She stated <br />she called today to get additional information and was told the sound system was not moving <br />forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy commented this project could come down to budgeting but noted all items would <br />be included. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden questioned where the plans for the scoreboard were. <br /> <br />Mr. Pomeroy reported these plans were detailed on Sheet C 2.3 detail 12, noting the exact type <br />was specified. He commented the general height and I-beam size was spelled out on this page. <br />He indicated he originally submitted his plans to Mike Mrosla. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden asked if the original scoreboard was being replaced. <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 <br />reported the back of the scoreboard would face the railroad tracks and residential area. He <br />indicated the existing scoreboard was approximately 240 feet from the property line and the new <br />scoreboard 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.