My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 10-09-1990
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CC 10-09-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:13:10 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:22:32 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.
/
9
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 /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, October 9, 1990 <br /> Page 6 <br /> CASE #90-14 (COnt'd) Councillnernber GrCMe also stated opposition to the <br /> . proposal, due to the moratorimn enacted by Council action <br /> this evening. She advised she recently viewed the interior of the bingo hall and <br /> there appears to be enough space inside to enclose an area for nonsmoking. Growe <br /> also expressed concern that the hard-surfaced area has not been installed over <br /> the past four years the hall has been in operation. <br /> councillnember Malone questioned if the pav:in::J of the parking lot area was a <br /> condition of approval when the original site plan was reviewed by Council in <br /> 1986. <br /> Planner Bergly stated the Council action did not specifically require the paving, <br /> however, hard-surfaced area is required by City code. <br /> Malone explained in an I-1 District the builcJ.irg meets current code and the <br /> applicant sul:xnitted the application one month prior to the :i1t1position of the <br /> moratorilllU. <br /> councillnember Malone suggested if approval is granted the applicant be advised <br /> the monies spent on expansion of the facility will not be recouped in the future, <br /> based on the proposed development guidelines and rezoning of the area and that <br /> iroprovement of the parking area be a condition of approval. <br /> Mayor Sather agreed with Councillnernber Malone that the..application be considered <br /> for action and stated it may be difficult for le;Jal counsel to defen::i action to <br /> deny based on the moratorimn :i1t1position, He also agreed the applicant should be <br /> . required to install the paved area within a thirty day period. <br /> Marlyn Damman, representing American Business Women's AssoCiation, stated she is <br /> appalled by the condition of the b:in::Jo hall and Council should review the <br /> operation of the hall. DaJmnan confirmed that there is sufficient area inside the <br /> facility to enclose an area for nonsmoking patrons. She reviewed the recent <br /> dispute between management and renters of the facility regarding the amount of <br /> space and cost of rental; indicated the management is request:in::J the addition to <br /> justify higher rental fees for the charities operat:in::J at the hall. <br /> councillnember Malone stated the city cannot regulate the operation of the bingo <br /> hall management, only regulate the build:in::J meet:in::J code requirements. <br /> Malone moved, seconded by Sather, to approve the site <br /> Plan Review, Case #90-14, for a builcJ.irg addition at the Pot 0 Gold Bingo Hall, <br /> 3776 COnnolly, subject to the property owner be:in::J notified of the following: l. <br /> That with the intended rezoning of the property, the building will become <br /> nonconforming and future modifications will not be pennitted without uwrading of <br /> the facility; 2. That a builcJ.irg pennit for the addition will not be issued until <br /> the surfacing of the parking area is installed in the northwest area of the site <br /> to accornrrodate parking and meet code requirements; and, 3. That ten additional <br /> parking spaces will be added in the northeast corner of the site, to accarnmcx:late <br /> reIOOval of parking for the builcJ.irg addition, and the railroad spur reIOOved, <br /> prior to issuance of a builcJ.irg pennit. Motion failed. (Malone, Sather voting in <br /> favor; Hansen, GrCMe and Mahowald opposed) (2-3) <br /> . Planner Bergly recommerxied that action for denial of the application include . <br /> rationale. <br /> - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.