Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 14, 2012 14 <br /> 8. The Council has received additional information at its May 14, 2012 <br /> Council meeting that was not available to the Planning Commission at <br /> its April 18, 2012 meeting. <br /> The motion amendment carried (3-2) (Tamble and Werner opposed). <br /> Councilmember Tamble noted he met with the applicant to discuss the project in depth. He was <br /> concerned with the longevity of the project but understood the applicant was willing to assume <br /> this risk. He understood that new material was provided to the Council that was not reviewed by <br /> the Planning Commission. However, with the safeguard that the right-in, right-out access had <br /> been approved by the County, he was in favor of the redevelopment as proposed. <br /> Councilmember Werner indicated another option would be for the Council to table action on <br /> this item. He questioned how the applicant would proceed if the application were denied. <br /> City Attorney Filla stated the applicant could come back before the Council with a new <br /> application for consideration at the Planning Commission's next meeting, or the same plan in six <br /> months. <br /> Councilmember Tamble questioned if the item were tabled if the timeline would be met. <br /> City Attorney Filla stated this would be determined by the applicant's actions. If he wished to <br /> resubmit the same plan he would have to wait six months. However, if the item were tabled, <br /> action would have to be taken by the Council within 120 days of the submission of the <br /> application. <br /> Mayor Grant commented if the plan were to be resubmitted with a comprehensive plan it could <br /> be reviewed by the Planning Commission. <br /> City Planner Beekman explained a comprehensive land use plan would remove the six-month <br /> waiting period. <br /> Mayor Grant indicated it was not in the Council's best interest to consider an application that <br /> had missing pieces and was not fully reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated the PUD <br /> was requesting a great deal from the City and would need to be completed. There were a number <br /> of items that needed to be addressed. He explained that he would not support the request this <br /> evening and did not want the Council to set a precedence by considering an incomplete <br /> application. <br /> The motion carried (4-1) (Tamble). <br /> C. Resolution 2012-013 — Calling a Public Hearing for the Recovery of Costs for <br /> 1415 Glenhill Road <br /> This item was moved to the Consent Agenda as Item 3F for approval. <br /> D. Charitable Contribution Proposal <br />