My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 11-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CC 11-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:38 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 1:46:00 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.
/
17
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
<br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br /> NOVEMBER 26, 2001 14 <br /> . Councilmember Aplikowski asked if the applicant's desire was strong enough to <br /> come back with another plan. Mr. Goserud responded in the affirmative. <br /> Mayor Probst stated his strong desire was to see a modified proposal go back through <br /> the planning process and not straight to the Council. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated he would agree with the Mayor. He noted he thinks it <br /> would be the best way to proceed. He added that he hoped that in the process the <br /> developer would try to work with the neighbors. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a motion <br /> to deny request for approval of the plat and request for variances in Planning Case <br /> #01-27 for reasons contained in the staff report of November 20,2001, as <br /> recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> 3. Case #01-23, City of Arden Hills, Sign Ordinance <br /> Mr. Parrish explained this is the second reading and consideration of final adoption of <br /> the Sign Ordinance. He stated it has elements discussed at the previous work session. <br /> He noted there was a limitation on the exemption for religious symbols. He added <br /> . there were also elements for the maintenance and repair of signs. <br /> Councilmember Larson asked for clarification under Section four in the paragraph <br /> that relates to religious symbols. Mr. Parrish responded the Council could omit the <br /> "public building" language. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated the mention of both types of buildings makes sense. He <br /> suggested the language "religious or other symbols". <br /> Mr. Filla requested further clarification on the reason for the changes. Mr. Parrish <br /> responded there has been some changes in the last couple of years in the regulation of <br /> churches. He stated that in the past there had been a blanket exception for religious <br /> symbols. He noted this section places two restrictions on the exception. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski asked if this meant no crosses on churches. Mr. Parrish <br /> responded no cross could extend beyond the building. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski stated this was un-American. She stated she never <br /> intended to affect church steeples. <br /> Councilmember Larson stated the original concern was based on lighting on a <br /> building. He noted the language was to say the city did not want to regulate religious <br /> . symbols unless they were nuisances. He added limits were to be set, for the most part, <br /> it was not to regulate them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.