Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . Arden Hills Council 9 June 8 , 1992 <br /> to report some confusion which has taken place with regard <br /> to Mr. Foster's application and to request prompt Counci 1 <br /> action. <br /> MI:'. Balyk stated that Mr. Foster's Case 90-9 for a site plan <br /> review was considered some time ago by the City, but when <br /> MI:'. Foster recently came to the City to complete the process <br /> in order to meet upcoming closing and construction <br /> deadlines, he was told by the City that he must begin the <br /> entire procedure over because the site plan approval had <br /> expired. <br /> Mr. Balyk reviewed portions of December 1990 Council minutes <br /> relating to Case 90- 9 and said the minutes do not indicate a <br /> site plan expires in one year. He said the applicant was <br /> confused by information received from the City, did not <br /> anticipate any delay, and is now faced with a time <br /> constraint in meeting upcoming commitments. <br /> Mayor Sather asked if Council consideration at the next <br /> regular meeting on June 29, 1992 would be early enough to <br /> meet Mr. Foster's deadlines. Balyk said the closing is <br /> . currently set for June 12, 1992 and Mr. Foster will suffer a <br /> severe financial impact if the matter is not addressed <br /> before cl osing. Balyk indicated that if Counci 1 would <br /> consider taking action at their June 15 worksession meeting, <br /> perhaps he could postpone the closing until then. <br /> Councilmember Mahowald commented that this issue and the <br /> next item on this evening's agenda (consideration of <br /> development moratorium) are tied together. Councilmember <br /> Malone commented that the fact that Mr. Foster allowed the <br /> site plan to expire is the reason for the delay now. <br /> Mr. Balyk stated that conflicting information was received <br /> from City staff relative to the application procedure. City <br /> Planner Bergly said he did inform the applicant of the <br /> process and also advised the applicant when the site plan <br /> was due to expire, but the request to extend the site plan <br /> was received after expiration date of council approva 1 . <br /> MI:'. Foster said that in discussion with Mr. Bergly before <br /> the site plan expired, his understanding was that the site <br /> plan would be in suspended status, could be revisited later, <br /> but would not expire. He added that his application was <br /> introduced and considered before the development moratorium <br /> became an issue. <br /> . Councilmember Mahowald and Mayor Sather suggested that it <br /> may be appropriate for the Planning Commission to revisit <br /> this issue. Attorney Filla stated that he was not aware <br /> unti 1 this evening the deadlines that Mr. Foster is under, <br />