01-08-24-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL—JANUARY 8, 2024 24 was cause for concern for her. She explained the City had restrictions in place and noted all other businesses have had to follow these restrictions. Councilmember Holden indicated she would like to go through each of the variances in further detail. However, she did not believe this was her purpose. She believed the flexibility asks were not offset by any enhancements. She noted the site was short on landscaping. Mr. Smith explained he could not plant additional trees along Lexington Avenue due to the location of the utility right of way. Councilmember Holden reported the applicant was still asking for setback and other flexibilities. She stated at this time she could not support this project moving forward. Ms. Grant stated Crew Carwash was one of the top brands in Indiana. She encouraged the Council to visit the Crew Carwash in West St. Paul. She commented she would be happy to work with the City to better understand how this business would work in Arden Hills. Mr. Steen reported the City Council had the authority to extend the approval timeline by 60 days. He stated he would be willing to take the Council's feedback and could amend the plans. Councilmember Holden reported the applicant would have to readdress the entire site plan given the number of flexibilities that have been requested and she did not believe this could be worked through at this meeting. Councilmember Fabel asked if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this Planning Case. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated the Planning Commission had recommended approval but had many of the same concerns regarding the building materials, landscaping and design. Councilmember Fabel questioned what kind of risk the City Council would be running if the project were denied. City Attorney Schmidt explained the fact that the Planning Commission recommended approval was a net neutral stating the City Council makes all final determinations on applications. She reported as far as assessing risk, it was difficult for her to say, noting arbitrary and capricious is a legal standard, noting this would be a quasi-judicial decision that would be determined by the findings approved by the Council. Councilmember Fabel inquired if the approval period could be extended 60 days. City Attorney Schmidt advised the City Council has unilateral authority to request 60 additional days before taking action on the qualifying application. Councilmember Fabel supported pursuing a 60-day extension for this Planning Case. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Rousseau seconded a motion to deny Planning Case 23-020 and Resolution 2024-005 for a