My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-08-24-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
01-08-24-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2024 9:49:46 AM
Creation date
1/12/2024 3:08:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
521
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 — DECEMBER 11, 2023 3 <br />the interim tobacco ordinance. She indicated her client was in the process of selling the tobacco <br />shop since mid -November. She reported the purchase of this business was contingent upon the <br />buyer receiving a tobacco license. She indicated Mr. Hussain (the buyer) submitted a tobacco <br />license application on November 22, which was prior to the November 27 City Council meeting <br />where the interim ordinance was passed by the City Council. She asked that Mr. Hussain's <br />application be considered so that her client may sell his business. While she understood the intent <br />of the ordinance, she reported this business has been operating in the community for many years. <br />She requested this application go through the consideration process in order to allow the sale to be <br />completed. <br />4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES <br />City Administrator Perrault provided a response for the Public Inquiries made at the November <br />27, 2023 City Council meeting. He explained a resident asked JDA members to publicly confirm <br />whether the proposed 1,960 density number would go up or change. He deferred to these <br />Councilmembers to see if they wanted to offer additional comments, but noted this was the <br />number the JDA and developer has agreed upon as a maximum density for the project. He noted <br />decisions made today, do not bind the future elected body. He reported a future Council could <br />propose more or less density. He stated any future changes would be dependent on County <br />approval. He commented on another question raised by the public regarding development along <br />Highway 96. He stated he could not speak definitively to the references that were made, he noted <br />development occurs within each community per their own specific zoning codes and development <br />procedures. He indicated he was not aware of a project along Highway 96 that was the same scope <br />of Rice Creek Commons. He reported the most recent development along Highway 96 was in <br />Vadnais Heights at McMenemy Street which was comprised of 163 units across 13.44 acres <br />which had a density of 12 units per acre. <br />Councilmember Holden stated for the record, the future Council could be made up of existing <br />Councilmembers. <br />Councilmember Monson explained she was the Councilmember that spoke to other <br />developments along Highway 96. She indicated her general comment was that this roadway would <br />continue to develop and more housing or commercial would be added. She understood that no <br />other communities would have the same scale as the Rice Creek Commons project. She reported <br />this Council has an incredible opportunity to make an amazing development in close proximity to <br />large metropolitan areas. <br />5. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS <br />None. <br />6. STAFF COMMENTS <br />None. <br />7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.