My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 10-29-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 10-29-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:25 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:38 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.
/
134
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 PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 3, 200l <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (6-0). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />CASE # 01-16 -CITY OF ARDEN HILLS SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE <br />CODIFICATION <br /> <br />Staff reviewed their report dated September 26, 2001 and recommended codification as <br />presented noting the changes made by the City Attorney. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman pointed out the Rules of Construction did not read as the <br />other City Ordinances did. Mr. Parrish replied these rules were apparently taken from the <br />language used in the 1970s. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand asked if this Ordinance applied to storage of materials and trash <br />along the shoreline. Mr. Parrish stated he did not know if this Ordinance would apply, <br />but the nuisance Ordinance would apply. He stated he would talk with the City Attorney <br />to see if they could add this type oflanguage to this Ordinance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchene, to table Case #01-16 <br />for additional information. <br /> <br />The motion carried unanimously (6-0). <br /> <br />REPORTS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A. Council Liaison <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski indicated Council had approved the Guidant signs, except <br />for the water tower. The Hamline subdivision, this was not approved. The Perkins <br />application was approved. The Arden Tower proposal had been discussed in <br />worksession. She stated they had been promised they would be in the new City Hall by <br />the end ofthe month. <br /> <br />B. Planning Commissioners <br /> <br />There were no reports from the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />C. Staff <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish gave an update on the next meeting's agenda. He asked the Commission for <br />guidelines on what type of activities the Commissioners were willing to attend. Chair <br />Baker stated the Commissioners had in the past reviewed properties and he asked if there <br />were any legal issue regarding this. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish stated he did not know if this was a legal issue, or if it was an ethical issue. . <br /> <br />Commissioner Sand stated it was his opinion that it was alright to look at the property, <br />but not discuss the issue directly with the applicant. Commissioner Zimmerman agreed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.