CC 08-13-1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 8-13-90 Page 2 ro1PIAINT (Cont'd) Park Director Buckley stated the contractor sul:tnitted 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 fram the property. Lemberg stated the workers were not ordered fram 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 company and register the complaint received by Lemberg. CASE #90-11; SUP, aroRaI, HWY 96 & SNELLING, SAINTS VOIDDYMYR & OLGA UKRAINIAN aroRaI Council was referred to the Planner's report and Planning Commission minutes dated 8-1-90, and the correction to the Planner's report dated 8-8-90, regarding the Special Use Pennit application for a Church at Highway 96 and Snelling Avenue. 'Ihe Planner reviewed the Planning Commission reconunendation to approve the special use pennit, conditioned upon the approval of a revised site plan which addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission as relative to site coverage, in=eased landscaping, detailed plans for lighting and parking setbacks. eounci1mernber Malone recalled the proposal for a church at this location was discussed in a preliminary fashion in 1987 and at that tbne 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 commission had also expressed the unwillingness to consider variances and suggested the applicant design the facilities to 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/DOr was requesting cities limit a=ess onto Highway 96, due to a study being conducted at that tbne. 'Ihe Planner advised the main concern relative to the MN/DOr 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/DOr opposition to providing an access onto Highway 96 at this location. Attorney Filla explained that approval of the special use pennit at this time will place the City in a difficult position of attempting to insure COI1'pCItibility with other uses in the area until such time as all the details of the plan are sul:tnitted; the preliminary plan sul:tnitted is not in compliance with code requirements and approval of the SUP does not guarantee these items will be approved during site plan review. Filla recommended Council defer action on this matter until such tbne as the applicant addresses all the concerns expressed by Planning Commission and Council in relation to the site plan and subnits 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 a=eptable site plan, outlines conditions attached to approval, and states findings for approval of the SUP.