My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-10-1989
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
CC 04-10-1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:07:46 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:30:00 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.
/
9
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 />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 4-10-89 <br />~age 3 <br /> <br />CASE #88-30 (Cont'd) <br /> <br />Councilmembers concurred they would prefer to review a <br />more detailed plan; no formal action was taken on General <br />Plan approval. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planner Bergly advised the applicant is seeking approval of the Preliminary Plat <br />for financing purposes; he suggested such approval be contingent upon General <br />Plan approval, after Council review of the detailed plans. <br /> <br />Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, that Council approve <br />the Preliminary Plat, Case #88-30, contingent upon approval of the PUD General <br />Plan and based on the following: <br /> <br />1. The proposed preliminary plat is necessary to accommodate financing of the <br />proposed PUD project and is designed specifically for the proposed General Plan. <br /> <br />2. The preliminary plat approval will be effective for development according <br />to the PUD General Plan. If the General Plan is not approved or withdrawn prior <br />to development, the preliminary plat will also be withdrawn. <br /> <br />3. Park dedication will be resolved prior to issuance of grading or building <br />permits. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, that Council approve <br />the Rezoning, Case #88-30, from R-1 Single Family Residential, to R-4 Multiple <br />Dwelling District, contingent upon approval of the PUD General Plan and based on <br />... the following: <br /> <br />1. There have been zoning classification changes and development changes on <br />adjacent properties to the north which indicate that a higher density than that <br />shown on the Comprehensive Plan is appropriate. <br />2. A Concept Plan has been approved by the Village for a PUD which is found <br />to be acceptable to the Village and requires rezoning. <br />3. The rezoning will only be effective for development according to the <br />approved PUD General Plan, if that occurs. If the General Plan is not approved or <br />is withdrawn prior to development, the rezoning will revert to the R-1 District. <br />4. Rezoning is necessary to accomplish the development objectives proposed <br />in the PUD General Plan. <br />5. The R-4 rezoning will be <br />Preliminary Plat, containing the <br />parcel and Lot 5, containing the <br /> <br />only for Lots 1 through 4 <br />four apartment buildings. <br />farmstead, will remain in <br /> <br />of the prior approved <br />The Park dedication <br />the R-1 District. <br /> <br />Acting Attorney Filla questioned if the developer understood the intent of the <br />two previous Council actions; the proposed Preliminary Plat and Rezoning approval <br />are contingent upon approval of the General Plan scheduled for submission at the <br />May 8 Regular Council meeting. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chuck Cook, developer of the project, advised he understood the intent of the <br />Council actions. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />CASE #89-03; SITE <br />PLAN REVIS., 1313 <br />W. CO. RD. E, <br /> <br />Council was referred to the Planner's revised report <br />dated 4-6-89, relative to the application to construct <br />a minor addition to the McDonald's building at the SW <br />corner; an office and cashier window are proposed. <br /> <br />Bergly explained any modification to an existing SUP requires an amendment, <br />however, he explained the proposal does not intensify the business activity and <br />less traffic congestion. In his opinion the proposed changes would benefit both <br />the applicant and the Village. He stated the building addition will not protrude <br />out further than the existing pickup window and will allow faster service to <br />drive-through lines. Bergly noted that Council has the option to review this <br />as a Site Plan Revision or an amendment to the Special Use Permit. <br /> <br />Council concurred to review the matter as a site plan revision. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Bergly explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan <br />revision at their meeting of 4/5/89. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.