CCP 08-27-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

------ ~ ~ ~ .. Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 8-13-90 Page 2 o::MPIAINr (Cont'd) Park Director Buckley stated the contractor suhnitted . references from other cities utilizing their service; when checking references, the other cities offered no complaints and were very satisfied with the personnel work performance. He suggested the property owner may have had high expectations regarding the duties of the workers and explained the workers were ordered from the property. Lemberg stated the workers were not ordered from the property, only requested to pile the branches in the driveway. Council concurred to direct staff to contact the appropriate person at the tree service conpany and register the complaint received by Lemberg. CASE #90-11; SUP, Council was referred te the Planner's report and Planning CHURCH, HWY 96 & Cammission minutes dated 8-1-90, and the =rection to SNELLING, SAINl'S the Planner's report dated 8-8-90, regarding the Special VOIDDYMYR & OLGA Use Permit application for a Church at Highway 96 and UKRAINIAN CHURCH Snelling Avenue. The Planner reviewed the Planning Cammission reconunendation to approve the special use pennit, conditioned upon the approval of a revised site plan which addresses the concerns of the Planning Cammission as relative to site coverage, in=eased landscaping, detailed plans for lighting and parking setbacks. Counci1Inember Malone recalled the proposal for a church at this location was discussed in a prel:iminary fashion in 1987 and at that ti1ne concern was expressed . relative to the intense development of this small site, which nonnally results in the need for v-ariances from code requirements. He stated the Planning cornrnission had also expressed the unwillingness to consider variances and suggested the applicant design the facilities te meet code requirements. Malone recalled that there was no opposition to utilization of the site for a church. He further advised that in 1987 MN/oor was requesting cities limit a=ess onte Highway 96, due te a study being conducted at that ti1ne. 'Ihe Planner advised the main concern relative te the MN/oor study was the =eation of excess traffic during peak hours. He explained churches do not nonnally conflict with "peak" traffic hours and he did not foresee MN/oor opposition to providing an a=ess onto Highway 96 at this location. Atterney Filla explained that approval of the special use pennit at this ti1ne will place the City in a difficult position of attempting to insure compatibility with other uses in the area until such ti1ne as all the details of the plan are suJ::xnitted; the prel:iminary plan suJ::xnitted is not in compliance with oode requirements and approval of the SUP does not guarantee these items will be approved during site plan review. Filla recommended CoilllCil defer action on this matter until such ti1ne as the applicant addresses all the concerns expressed by Planning Commission and Council in relation te the site plan and suJ::xnits detailed plans for the development of this site which are in compliance with code requirements. He advised the special use pennit approval nonnally is approved in conjunction with an acceptable site . plan, outlines conditions attached te approval, and states findings for approval of the SUP.