Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MARCH 26, 2001 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Mr. Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Companies, introduced Mr. John Shardlow and Mr. Steve <br />Doughty. He stated they had a very good exchange with the Planning Commission and staff. <br />He noted they have provided input in terms of achieving design and performance standards. He <br />added this gives them a tool with enough definition to say that within these standards they can <br />have confidence the city would look favorably on a plan. He stated this is important to the larger <br />users. He noted there is a lot of planning involved in choosing a site even preliminarily and the <br />large users are reluctant to go through it at all if they are going to lose time. He added there is <br />also a cost investment. He stated the Planning Commission offered good suggestions. He noted <br />they have a few items on which they had a difference of opinion. He added he would like to <br />continue that discussion here. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he has a bit of a concern about approving design standards without a plan on <br />the table. He noted his concern that they have not downgraded the standards to allow an <br />unintended outcome. He added this could happen if the applicant does not find a larger user and <br />goes with some other plan. He stated they need to convince him that this could not happen. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson stated this concern was expressed at the Planning Commission as well. He noted <br />they spent three hours in order to have enough specifics to prevent that from happening. He <br />added that is why they have spent so much time discussing site plans, materials, and landscaping. <br />He stated there is that final crucial step the council would have to stop such a project. He noted <br />when they submit the plans for the actual building, final PUD, and building permit, the council <br />would have the control at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. John Shardlow stated one good thing about a PUD is the ability to be flexible on zoning. He <br />noted that if they had a specific tenant they were designing for it would be in the mutual interest <br />on both parties to attract that user. He added they have done this many times around the twin <br />cities and other metro communities as well. He stated the Council still has the final development <br />stage at which they would see specific users, plans, and landscaping. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated there is not a project yet and he does not feel those guidelines and <br />provisions in anyway bind him. He noted Council, staff, and the Planning Commission would <br />be able to look at a specific project. He added he would guess that the final plan could come <br />back totally different. He stated he shared the concern about it being an envelope. Mr. <br />Shardlow responded he was talking about PUDs working in other communities. He stated the <br />development in Roseville had this same approach. He noted what is important here is that there <br />is a meeting of the minds between the developer and the city on what it wants to see on that site. <br />He added they have discussed every aspect they can think up without a specific plan. He noted <br />the Council is approving the way the signage would be handled, and the materials. He added he <br />is concerned that the city could go back to square one on a specific use. He stated he hopes it is a <br />meeting of the minds so he can go back into the market place and represent this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated one major issue seems to be the height of the building. She <br />noted she does not have a problem with that as long as they are all on the same page. <br />