CC 07-26-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 26,2004 4 applicant then has I year to apply for a building peDTIit. Therefore, the current timeline allows up to 18 months between Master Plan approval and the issuance of a Building PeDTIit. If the Council grants the applicant additional time there may be more than 6 months between the Master Plan and the Final Plan without requiring the applicant to reapply, The Council may also approve a Master or Final Plan without an extension and the applicant could come back at a later date to request a new application. He stated language could be added to the Zoning Ordinance to limit the timelines for the Master and Final Plan by adding caps to the amount of time peDTIitted or adding caps for the amount and time of extensions, Language could also be added to differentiate between single-phase developments and larger, phased, multi-building developments, He presented six alternatives for Council's consideration. Mr. Clark recommended the Council's discussion revolve around what a fair amount of time is for handling the Master and Final Plan process and whether the current process was adequate or whether changes need to be instituted, Councilmember Larson stated he believed staff had recognized that there were differences between the various campus developments, but his concern was the North Heights project where they were requesting approval for a project six or seven years in advance before they intended to build, He noted they needed to structure their approach differently to address this type of a request. He was concerned that over the last year the Planning Commission, Council and neighborhood was engaged in this process when North Heights had no intention of building for a long time. He indicated this was not a good use of the City's resources. He asked ifthere was some way they could put in the Zoning Code or some other document some type of a good faith intention on the part of the applicant that they were going to act within a certain period of time, If they could not act within that certain period oftime, they would be told they needed to come back when they could build within that period of time, Councilmember Grant asked how many situations like this the City had, Mr. Clark replied Chesapeake was one situation where there were a couple of extensions given, Mr. Hellegers replied the County Road D and Cleveland property would also fit in this situation, Council member Grant stated while some of the statements are very good from a logical perspective, he wanted to be careful that they did not use the North Heights project as a precedent, which would disadvantage another business, He stated he wanted to see something that was reasonable. Mayor Aplikowski asked if a plan was not ready, would it be it be allowed to go to the Planning Commission, Mr. Clark replied if a plan were not complete, it would not be brought to the Planning Commission, Mr. Filla stated according to the Code, amendmcnts to PUD's had to be processed in the same manner as applications,