My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-27-2020-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
04-27-2020-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/27/2020 9:56:52 AM
Creation date
5/27/2020 9:56:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 27,2020 <br />Councilmember Holmes questioned if the language should be revised to state for land south of <br />County Road 96 and west of County Road 10. She supported the language being made more <br />specific. <br />Community Development ManagerlCity Planner Mrosla reported the amendment does allow <br />Summit Development to move forward while also allowing for other PUD's on High Density <br />land. He explained when this was previously discussed the Council was in favor of omitting the <br />TCAAP area because it already had guiding language. For this reason, staff was recommending <br />areas south of County Road 96 and/or west of County Road 10. <br />Councilmember McClung commented the original language was sent to the Met Council. He <br />indicated there must have been some push back on the original language. <br />Community Development ManagerlCity Planner Mrosla stated this was the case. <br />Councilmember McClung questioned if a smaller area, such as the area south of County Road <br />96 or west of County Road l0 would be supported by the Met Council. <br />Community Development ManagerlCity Planner Mrosla believed this would be supported by <br />the Met Council. <br />Councilmember Holmes commented she did not want to go through this process again or hold up <br />the Summit Development. She questioned if the Council could change the language or if this <br />would muddy up the hearing that was held tonight. <br />City Attorney Jamnik explained this would depend on the Council's intent. He indicated there <br />may be a difference of opinion on the original intent was. He reported the Council has the <br />jurisdictional right to take the recommendation and shape it the way the Council deems <br />appropriate for the Met Council's consideration and approval. <br />Mayor Grant recommended the language read south of County Road 96 and south of County <br />Road 10. <br />Community Development ManagertCity Planner Mrosla recommended the language read <br />south of County Road 96 or County Road 10 density may be increased. <br />Councilmember McClung commented another way to narrow the area would be to state the land <br />west of County Road l0 and north of I-694. <br />Councilmember Scott supported this language change. <br />Mayor Grant agreed. <br />Councilmember Holmes stated she would like to see just the Summit property listed <br />12
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.