Laserfiche WebLink
<br />---------- -- <br />, <br /> <br />Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting, July 13, 1987 . <br />Page 6 . <br /> <br />COMPo WORTH (Cont'd) Morrison suggested that Council may consider a work <br />session to discuss her outline and set their definite <br />plan of implementation prior to the Council meeting; she reminded Council that <br />the deadline for submission of the implementation program is August 1st of this <br />year. <br /> <br />Sather commented that Comparable Worth would significantly impact the Village <br />for the next three year span; he understood Morrison's hesitancy to submit a <br />plan to the State without thorough Council review and recommendations. <br /> <br />Council concurred to hold a special meeting to discuss Comparable Worth on <br />Wednesday, July IS, 1987, at 8:00 p.m., at the Village Hall. ' <br /> <br />MISC. Councilmember Winiecki advised that she would be absent <br />from the Regular Council meeting. of July 27, the July <br />~Oth Board of Appeals Meeting, and the Planning Commission meeting of August <br />3rd. <br /> <br />IS43 BRIARKNOLL Mayor Woodburn discussed a letter received from a <br />resident at 1543 Briarknoll relative to a weed notice <br />he received. Tpe resident advised that his grass has not been left to grow and <br />his opinion was that the complaint was unnecessary and unfair. <br /> <br />CITY OF ROSEVILLE; Mayor Woodburn referred Council to a letter he <br />GLENHILL RD. PROJ. received from the City of Roseville thanking the . <br />Arden Hills Staff for their cooperation relative to the <br />joint improvement venture on Glenhill Road in our City. <br /> <br />LETTER FROM RESIDENT Mayor Woodburn discussed a letter received from a <br />RE: FILL, TILLER LN. resident concerned about a lot proposed to be filled <br />on Tiller Lane. He requested that copies be sent to all <br />Councilmembers for their review of this matter. <br /> <br />REPORT OF CLERK ADMINISTRATOR <br /> <br />RES. #87-34 & 87-35; Clerk Administrator referred Council to the Resolutions <br />NO. SNELLING PARK; relating to the apportionment of assessments for North <br />NORTH HGTS. CHURCH Snelling Park and North Heights Lutheran Church. <br /> <br />Morrison discussed the options of abating the outstanding assessments or paying <br />the amount from the Park Fund; in checking with Mrs. McNiesh past practise was <br />to pay the assessments from the Park Fund. <br /> <br />Council discussed both options. <br /> <br />Winiecki moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br />Resolution No. 86-34, RELATING TO APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO <br />COMBINED IMPROVEMENT W-77-S AND W-78-2 and Resolution No. 86-35, RELATING TO <br />, <br />APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO CONSOLIDATED SANITARY SEWER <br />IMPROVEMENTS NOS. 12 AND 13, and that outstanding assessments in the amount of . <br />$8,215.87 be paid from Park Fund monies. <br /> <br />Peck moved, seconded by Winiecki, to amend the motion <br />to include; any excess monies paid for outstanding assessment be returned to <br />the Park Fund. Amended motion carried. (Peck, Winiecki and Woodburn voting in <br />favor; Sather opposed) (3-1) <br /> <br />Original motion as amended carried. (Winiecki, Peck and Woodburn voting in <br />favor; Sather opposed) (3-1) <br /> <br />CASE #87-3; SUP Clerk Administrator advised that this was the final <br />VALENTINE HILLS draft of the Special Use Permit for Valentine Hills <br />SCHOOL ADDITION School Addition. <br /> <br />Council discussed the condition relating to Council approval of 'the screening <br />for rooftop ventilation units. 4It <br /> <br />Moved by Peck, seconded by Winiecki, that Council <br />approve the Special Use Permit, Case #87-3, Valentine Hills School Addition, <br />conditioned upon screening provided for the rooftop ventilation units, and, <br />furthermore, that Council allow the screening of the rooftop ventilation units <br />to be Visually inspected and approved administratively; if a problem with <br />granting approval arises the matter would be referred back to Council for <br />discussion. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />----- <br />------- <br />