Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ----------------- <br /> I <br /> ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 27. 1995 6 .. <br /> 0 I <br /> Mr. Ringwald reported the applicant has provided Staff with a letter dated November 17, 1995 <br /> which states that the applicant believes that condition number ten of the Planning Commission I <br /> recommendation is unreasonable and unnecessary. <br /> Mr. Dave Brabender, the applicant, indicated they had noted they would look into landscaping I <br /> the area near Highway 694, but did not indicate they would landscape the area. He noted the <br /> area in question is approximately 75 feet and is sloping. He noted this would be an added <br /> expense to a property they are leasing. He indicated they are currently adding $20,000 in . <br /> landscaping. <br /> Councilmember Hicks inquired if the area in question is adjacent to residents. Mr. Brabender I <br /> indicated no, it would be screening from the freeway. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski inquired if this is the area where the banner advertising for drivers I <br /> is normally positioned. Mr. Brabender indicated there is a sign there, at times they also hang a <br /> banner over the sign to advertise for drivers, but would be willing to remove the banner. <br /> Councilmember Aplikowski supported the removal of condition number ten. Councilmember I <br /> Malone concurred and reminded Council the applicant is a provider of student transportation for -. <br /> the City's school children and that cost increases to student transporation is reflected in the <br /> school levy. <br /> MOTION: Hicks moved and Malone seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #95-20, I <br /> Ryder Transportation, 1901 West County Road F, SUP amendment, subject to the <br /> stated conditions with the elimination of condition number ten. Motion carried I <br /> unanimously (5-0). <br /> Pav Estimate #3 - County Road F Improvement Project I <br /> City Engineer, Greg Stonehouse reviewed Pay Estimate #3 for County Road F improvements. <br /> Mr. Stonehouse recommended total retainage to date of$41,874.60, keeping the Contractor still I <br /> interested in the project until completion and satisfaction of the project has been established. <br /> Mr. Stonehouse indicated if the Pay Estimate meets the Council's approval, he would recommend I <br /> a payment of$1l3,707.24. <br /> Mayor Probst inquired if Mr. Stonehouse was confident that there would be enough funds . <br /> available should the City seek other companies to finish the work. Mr. Stonehouse indicated <br /> there should be sufficient funds available and noted the performance bond would be made I <br /> available should the City be unsatisfied with the work completed. <br /> -I <br /> I <br /> --------~---~--- <br />