CCP 07-10-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - June 26, 2000 4 , Ms. Becker asked whether necessary screening could be determined at City staff level, as part of the process of determining what additional items are acceptable. She added her company is e simply trying to reduce the amount of time that the process takes. Mayor Probst stated he is comfortable allowing City staff to make screening determinations. Councilmember Grant asked whether items 4 and 5, which were tabled, will come back before the Council. Ms. Chaput confirmed that the items will be presented to the Council at the July 31 regular meeting. Mr. Larson stated he would hope that City staff remains sensitive to the views expressed by the Council with regard to proposals for ramps and what additional screening might be requested in return. Mayor Probst stated he is comfortable that the additional screening requirement should be an item for staff review. He asked whether this should be more explicit in the approval. Ms. Chaput suggested that the addition of such language would be appropriate for referral by future staff. Councilmember Larson stated it might be appropriate to add to the approval that staff could include conditions regarding screening. Mr. Lynch noted that this should state "including but not limited to landscaping". MOTION: Councilmember Aplikowski moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #00-17b, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the properties at 1887 and 1987 Gateway Boulevard, with the following additional statement: e "City staff reserves the right to attach conditions regarding screening including, but not limited to, landscaping." The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Case #00-14, 3491 Lake Johanna Boulevard, Variance, Mertensotto Ms. Chaput stated that the applicant was not present at the meeting. Mr. Lynch stated that questions might arise which would require the presence of the applicant or a representative of the applicant. He suggested the issue might be tabled again since it might not be fair to make a decision on a case when the applicant is not represented. He asked whether the case might be tabled. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant's 60 days had been waived. Mayor Probst stated he would wish to informally poll the council since it might not be an issue if the case were approved. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she is not in agreement with the Planning Commission as the house is in need of improvement and the applicant has tried to come up with other ideas. She e