CCP 05-29-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

F ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL— MARCH 26, 2001 3 District; and site plan review, are not possible. All subsequent applications are denied based on the fact that a minor subdivision of the property can not occur. Ms. Chaput stated the applicant did submit a letter waiving the 60-day requirement in order to give them time to review the landscape issue. She noted the applicant was not present. Councilmember Larson stated he would support the recommendation to deny the application. He questioned what would be gained by the waiver. He noted no matter what the Council does the applicant has to come back to the Council and make a case for a variance to allow the subdivision to take place. He added he could not conceive any justification for that variance. He stated he did not see how the case could be made to go forward. He noted there is no hardship there. Councilmember Grant stated by denying the application, the applicant could not bring it back for six months. Mayor Probst stated that is correct unless they changed something on the plan. Councilmember Grant stated he thought the issue is moot. Councilmember Rem stated she understood what Councilmembers Grant and Larson were saying. She noted on the other hand, the applicant has been apprised and wants to wait 60 days. She added she did not see any harm in letting them waive the 60 days. She stated it might not change the outcome, but they have requested it. Mayor Probst stated it is a process issue. He noted that before Walgreens can come in with a plan, they have to create a developable site. He added his only fear relative to a potential waiver on time is that the applicant may think that the Council intends on approving the project, which is not the case. He stated the safest way to do that is to follow staff's recommendation to deny and let them come back with a plan for a developable site. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to deny the Requests for the Property located in the northwest quadrant of county Road E and Lexington Avenue, zoned B-2, General Business District as recommended by Staff. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Case#01-05, Chesapeake Companies, I-35W and I-694, Master PUD Ms. Chaput explained this is a master plan and concept PUD that was discussed in January. She stated the applicant continues to acquire properties for this development. She noted the Planning Commission reviewed in great detail the design standards at their meeting. She added the Commissioners went through each section and recommended changes accordingly. She stated the whole reason for a master PUD is to set up design standards for the development of that site. She noted they want strict guidelines for this. She reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and noted Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EFIS) samples had been submitted.