My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 05-24-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CC 05-24-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:23 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 1:27:36 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.
/
6
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />MAY 24, 2004 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski replied she understood this was an amendment to a PUD and she did not <br />believe those studies were required in this situation. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the kind of development being proposed here was not the kind of development <br />that met the thresholds of an Environmental Impact Statement. He noted he would look at those <br />requirements again to see if they would be required, but he did not believe it would meet the <br />thresholds. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski stated she understood that the residents' comments and concerns were heard <br />by the church and she asked them to keep an open mind regarding this application. <br /> <br />Jolene Poucher, 1548 Briarknoll Drive, asked if the church came back with something new, <br />would it come back to the neighborhood for their review first. She stated they wanted the church <br />to be held to what they had said in 1997 that they would not be making any further changes. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated even though the 1997 PUD indicated they were not going to request any <br />additions that did not preclude them from changing their mind and coming back to the City. He <br />noted there was nothing in the Code that required applicant to go to the neighborhood for their <br />opinion, but he believed in this situation it would be advisable that they do get the opinion of the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />6. NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />A. Accept Assessment Policv Task Force Recommendation <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated recognizing that the Council in the past had expressed some <br />concern about the need to have langnage in the assessment policy regarding the hardship <br />deferment policy and the appeals process, he wanted this to be tabled for further information <br />from staff. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem noted Council had also wanted a clearer definition for the tax-exempt <br />status of nonprofit entities. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Rem seconded a <br />motion to table the Assessment Policy Task Force Recommendation for <br />further information from staff regarding the deferral process, the appeals <br />process, and the definition of tax-exempt. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked if there were any rules governing the hardship policy. Mr. Filla <br />replied the City had some discretion over this, but not a lot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.