Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—MAY 8, 2023 9 <br /> Councilmember Monson stated she believed the action being requested was pro-development. <br /> She indicated she was pro-development, noting she wanted the best and highest use on the thumb <br /> property. She did not believe looking at other uses would preclude anyone else from bidding. She <br /> stated the process may have not been perfect, but she did not believe an imperfect process was not <br /> enough to be anti-development. She supported the City showing that it was open for business. <br /> Councilmember Rousseau indicated she has heard both sides of this matter. She explained an <br /> option would be to send this to the Planning Commission for further consideration which would <br /> push this matter out to June. She anticipated if the Council requested the Planning Commission <br /> review this matter, the item would not be back before the Council until July some time, which <br /> would align well with the July 28 date. <br /> Councilmember Holden questioned if the JDA would accept bids and then take more bids if a <br /> change was made to the Campus Commercial district. <br /> Councilmember Rousseau explained she was simply stating she would like the Planning <br /> Commission to consider this matter. <br /> Mayor Grant commented this was not like selling a house. He reported developers look for <br /> tenants and businesses to build on a site and proposals are built on this information. He indicated <br /> developers were given 90 days to complete this work in order to complete a comprehensive <br /> proposal. He stated the County and JDA opted to send out the RFI. He noted the City was open <br /> for business and the property was zoned. He reported the City was actively encouraging <br /> businesses to submit proposals for the thumb property in order to bring the highest and best use to <br /> this site with great jobs that brings prosperity to the area. He did not believe it was fair to change <br /> the process while developers were in the middle of their plans. He was of the opinion Director <br /> Collins was spot on with her initial assessment. He supported the City staying the course. He <br /> recommended the City review the proposals on July 28 and either accept one or consider a new <br /> course at that time. <br /> Councilmember Fabel stated he was not asking the Planning Commission to come back with an <br /> amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Rather, he was asking for clarifying language in order to <br /> remove a discouragement from what otherwise might be an available use for the property that <br /> would be consistent with the overall vision for the TCAAP development and would move the <br /> project forward at a more rapid pace. He wanted to see this project start moving. <br /> Councilmember Holden questioned why the solicitation wasn't canceled in order to do the <br /> process right. She stated this would make sure the process was clear,honest and transparent going <br /> forward. <br /> MOTION: Councilmember Monson moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a <br /> motion to direct staff to discuss clarification of the Campus Commercial <br /> zoning district and potential additional uses and make a recommendation to <br /> the Planning Commission for further discussion by the City Council. <br /> Mayor Grant stated there has been some discussion about interpretation of what was already <br /> there. He requested comment from staff on what was being meant by this. <br />