My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 07-10-2000
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCP 07-10-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:08 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 1:24:59 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.
/
78
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 />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - June 26, 2000 <br /> <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Ms. Becker asked whether necessary screening could be determined at City staff level, as part of <br />the process of determining what additional items are acceptable. She added her company is e <br />simply trying to reduce the amount of time that the process takes. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he is comfortable allowing City staff to make screening determinations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked whether items 4 and 5, which were tabled, will come back before <br />the Council. Ms. Chaput confirmed that the items will be presented to the Council at the July 31 <br />regular meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Larson stated he would hope that City staff remains sensitive to the views expressed by the <br />Council with regard to proposals for ramps and what additional screening might be requested in <br />return. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he is comfortable that the additional screening requirement should be an <br />item for staff review. He asked whether this should be more explicit in the approval. Ms. <br />Chaput suggested that the addition of such language would be appropriate for referral by future <br />staff. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated it might be appropriate to add to the approval that staff could <br />include conditions regarding screening. Mr. Lynch noted that this should state "including but not <br />limited to landscaping". <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion <br />to approve Planning Case #00-17b, Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />Amendment for the properties at 1887 and 1987 Gateway Boulevard, with the <br />following additional statement: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />"City staff reserves the right to attach conditions regarding screening including, <br />but not limited to, landscaping." <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />2. Case #00-14, 3491 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Variance, Mertensotto <br /> <br />Ms. Chaput stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Lynch stated that <br />questions might arise which would require the presence of the applicant or a representative of the <br />applicant. He suggested the issue might be tabled again since it might not be fair to make a <br />decision on a case when the applicant is not represented. He asked whether the case might be <br />tabled. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant's 60 days had been waived. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he would wish to informally poll the council since it might not be an issue if <br />the case were approved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is not in agreement with the Planning Commission as the <br />house is in need of improvement and the applicant has tried to come up with other ideas. She <br /> <br />e <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.