CC 06-24-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 24 Page two Planned Unit Development. Sta~e I, North Hei~hts Lutheran Church Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 6/21/85 and attached draft of Planned Unit Development Permit (Case No. 84-21) CONSTITUTING GENERAL PLAN APPROVAL OF NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERAN CHURCH MASTER PLAN AND SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF STAGE I THEREOF. Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve Case No. 84-21, North Heights Lutheran Church Planned Unit Development Permit, as drafted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Request on Procedure for Chan~es or Alterations to Sin~le Family Homes, Hunter's Park Council was referred to Lynden's letter of 6/20/85 re: Hunter's Park Procedure for Additions and Alterations. Lynden said he favors a 1aissez- faire approach on the part of the City or, at most, the "basic guidelines" approach recommended by Planner Miller; noted that the Hunter's Park Home- owners Association Architectural Committee is akin to the City's Planning Commission, and the Homeowner's Association is a microcosm of the City Council, and are set up to maintain the architectural and aesthetic harmony of the Hunter's Park development. . Concern was expressed relative to whether this would constitute "delega- tion of Council powers". Lynden said he does not see this as a problem; suggested Council may wish to delegate a member or two from the Planning Commission to sit in on the Hunter's Park Architectural Review Board, or establish "basic guidelines". Council concurred to refer the matter to Attorney Lynden and Planner Miller to develop "basic guidelines" for Council's consideration, relative to additions and alterations in Hunter's Park. Ordinance No. 236, Amendin~ Cable TV Franchise A~reement - Final Reading Council was referred to Attorney Lynden's letter of 6/21/85, and attached draft of Ordinance No. 236, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.0 OF ARTICLE III OF APPENDIX B OF THE ARDEN HILLS CODE, THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FRANCHISE ORDINANCE, REGARDING SPECIAL CHANNEL AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. Sather moved, seconded by Peck, that Council dispense with the Final Read- ing. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) Sather moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council adopt Ordinance No. 236, as drafted. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) . Case No. 85-2, Ed~ewater Estates Woodburn moved to reconsider the motion of June 10, 1985 (relative to Case No. 85-2, Edgewater Estates) that Council approve the Edgewater Estates Phase I, General Plan, the Preliminary Plat of the entire site, and rezoning of Lot 14 from R-1 to R-3 subject to eight conditions, and to place the motion on the floor for discussion. Motion was seconded by Sather and car- ried unanimously. (4-0) It was noted that four approving votes are required to effect a rezoning (motion of 6/10/85, which included rezoning of Lot 14, was passed with three approving votes). Sather said he believes Council had no problems with the rezoning portion of the motion. Hicks moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve the rezoning of Lot 14, Edgewater Estates, from R-1 to R-3. Motion carried unanimously. (4-0) . In further discussion, Hicks asked the density of Lot 14 (apartment area) and the density of Phase II (townhouse area). McGuire said he believes the apartment area exceeds 4.5 density -- is about 4.7 or 4.8 units/acre; stated that the townhouse area compensates for this overage at 4.2 or 4.3 units/acre. It was queried whether the Park shore Drive right-of-way location has been resolved. McGuire reported that it has not to date; stated that the 10-year conversion time frame condition must be resolved prior to pursuing the development further. Attorney Zappia explained that the applicant is amenable to almost any of the road proposals discussed; suggested it may