Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br />t <br />r <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />r, " <br />~~---~ <br /> <br />}.... <br /> <br />~, <br />" <br />I! <br />)! <br />" <br />:: <br />.Ii <br />" <br />, <br />I: <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />'4;~.,if' . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />....~. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />" <br />" <br />it <br />i; <br />I <br />:1 <br /> <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />;I <br /> <br />REASONS FOR EXTENSION REQUEST <br /> <br />I: <br />I' <br />The!1 extens Ion of the comp I et Ion of the Arden Hill s <br />I, <br />Ii <br />comprel1e!1slve!1 Plan Is requested because the community's planning <br /> <br />program Is be,~lnd scl1edule for the following reasons: <br />ji <br />I. ,1 The level of development activity In Arden Hills <br />:i over the past three years has, presented an ex- <br />ii treme Iy l1eavy workload for tl1e PI annlng Commls- <br />islon, the City staff and Its consultants. The <br />11 lengthy agendas of the regular monthly meetings <br />1: have not afforded tlllle for discussion of long <br />1: range planning ISSUEIl.. Interim special meetings <br />rof tl1e Planning Commission scl1e,duled as planning <br />i work sess Ions have frequent I y a Iso l1ad to dea I <br />jiWlth current development cases,' TOe difficulty <br />:: of arranging adequate work sessions for tl1e <br />fPlahnlng Commission has slowed anticipated progress. <br />~I . ' <br />II . <br />,! The amount of time requ I red by City sta ff and <br />l!plannlng and engineering consultants to handle <br />Ithe day-to-day work related ~o current development <br />Ii proposals has demanded time programmed for long <br />'range planning activities. This has also extended <br />Ii tl1e performance' t.l me or I g I na II y estab Ilshed. <br /> <br />2. Ii TOe Planning Commission has engaged In lengthy <br />!idlscusslons regarding 110uslng polley In Arden Hills, <br />jl cons I dered a major po II cy Issue I n the commun I ty. <br />i!Because they felt inadequately Informed about alter- <br />Ii natl ve approaches to tl1ehous I ng I ssue, a sign I f 1- <br />Jcant period of time was lost while the Planning <br />j:Commlsslon, as a, group and Individually, reviewed <br />1and tour~d existing housing alternatives In otl1er <br />:: metropo II tan commun I tl es . <br />" <br />i! <br />3. lTl1e controversial nature 6f certain Issues, speclfl- <br />!ically tl1e housing Issue, has, caused difficulty In <br />Ireachlng agreement on policies. Since the Planning <br />l' Comml ss Ion and commun I ty dea It with many of these <br />{same Issues during the prepllratlon of the 1976 <br />':Comprehenslve Plan, generating add,ltlonal Input <br />Ihas sometimes been difficult. <br />~l <br />" <br />[: <br />" <br />l' <br /> <br />:1 <br />,~ <br /> <br />" <br />" <br />'I <br />" <br />, <br />, <br />" <br />" <br /> <br />j. <br />" <br />" <br />!: <br />'i <br />Ii <br />" <br />.r <br />ii <br />I: <br />j! <br />:1 <br />" <br />I: <br />II <br />, <br />!I <br />.~i <br />" <br /> <br />----j <br />