My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-12-24-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
02-12-24-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2024 4:25:01 PM
Creation date
2/8/2024 4:11:02 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.
/
463
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 — JANUARY 8, 2024 24 <br />Ms. Grant stated Crew Carwash was one of the top brands in Indiana. She encouraged the <br />Council to visit the Crew Carwash in West St. Paul. She commented she would be happy to work <br />with the City to better understand how this business would work in Arden Hills. <br />Mr. Steen reported the City Council had the authority to extend the approval timeline by 60 days. <br />He stated he would be willing to take the Council's feedback and could amend the plans. <br />Councilmember Holden reported the applicant would have to readdress the entire site plan given <br />the number of flexibilities that have been requested and she did not believe this could be worked <br />through at this meeting. <br />Councilmember Fabel asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this <br />Planning Case. <br />Community Development Director Jagoe indicated the Planning Commission had <br />recommended approval but had many of the same concerns regarding the building materials, <br />landscaping and design. <br />Councilmember Fabel questioned what kind of risk the City Council would be running if the <br />project were denied. <br />City Attorney Schmidt explained the fact that the Planning Commission recommended approval <br />was a net neutral stating the City Council makes all final determinations on applications. She <br />reported as far as assessing risk, it was difficult for her to say, noting this would be a quasi- <br />judicial decision that would be determined by the findings approved by the Council. <br />Councilmember Fabel inquired if the approval period could be extended 60 days. <br />City Attorney Schmidt advised the City Council has unilateral authority to request 60 additional <br />days before taking action on the qualifying application. <br />Councilmember Fabel supported pursuing a 60-day extension for this Planning Case. <br />MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a <br />motion to deny Planning Case 23-020 and Resolution 2024-005 for a <br />Preliminary Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit <br />Development Phase I, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review at 3737 <br />Lexington Avenue N and 1133 Grey Fox Road, based on the fact the flexibility <br />request was too extensive, does not include enhancements within the project <br />and does not lead to a better overall project. <br />Mayor Grant reported if the motion was adopted the applicant could return with another <br />proposal in 180 days. <br />Councilmember Fabel explained he opposed the motion. He recommended the applicant be <br />allowed 60 days to revise the plans for consideration by the Council at a future meeting. <br />The motion carried 4-1 (Councilmember Fabel opposed). <br />9. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.