CCP 02-14-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. CITY OF ARDEN HILI.S MI!HlRANDllM DATE: February 9, 1994 TO: Dorothy Person, City Administrator FRCM: Brian FritsiIlger, ("'.......m.ity Develop:nent Coordinator SUBJEX::T : Case #93-15, Ryder Student Transportation Earlier tOOaY you indicated that Council M;mber Probst was seeking clarification on the rrotion approved by the City Council in Case #93-15, At the rreeting, there was a great deal of discussion about this case. In fact, one rrotion was arrended and withdrawn after discussion. I reviewed the videotape to clarify the action taken. (J:)uncil M3nber AplikaNSki rroved to approve the SUP which was seconded by Probst; thereafter, a lengthy discussion oc=red and at one p::>int the Council had to be reminded that a rrotion was actually on the table. In watching the tape, the actual rrotion, as to what Beverly Aplikowski was actually intending, is sarewhat difficult to understand. . It was after the discussion I asked for clarifications to what the rrotion was and specifically said, "I interpret the rrotion to be approval of the staff recanrendation, , .consisting of, . .Beverly Aplikowski resp::mded yes. I then stated, "So what you're doing is sending it back to the Planning Ccmnission to irrplerrent the SUP," Mr, Probst then made SCllE ccmrents about the conditions not being agreed upon. Mr, Hicks resp::mded the Planning O::mnission only discussed the rezoning and ordinance arrendment and never agreed to the SUP conditions. The vote was then taken by Council. As I was watching the tape, it is obvious that Mr. Probst was seeking further discussion of the conditions of the ordinance amendrrents; however, the confusion was over what conditions he kept referring to, ordinance or SUP. The rrotion, haNever, was clarified by myself and in my mind clearly laid out prior to the vote. BF:to .