My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 08-04-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CC 08-04-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:23 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 1:27:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
<br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />AUGUST 4, 2004 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the City needs to ask more of the developers when they make applications for development. <br />Councilmember Larson offered the following examples of building design: Cub Foods, with <br />additional design requirements requested by the Council the building was made to look much <br />better; Concrete tip-up buildings in Round Lake Park, the developer said that was the best they <br />could do and they are very unattractive buildings; D and Cleveland, the building looks very cheap <br />and should have used brick instead of the block and looked more like the Cox Insurance <br />building. Councilmember Larson also stated that PUD process should include some reasonable <br />expectations built into the process about the developers' intent to perform development within a <br />reasonable period of time. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Clark stated that one of the things that the City could do is <br />have an architect review plans on an escrow basis, similar to what the City Engineer does now, to <br />review the design aspects of a development. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Chair Sand said that there had been some discussion about design <br />guidelines before. Design guidelines will need to be done for TCAAP development. He <br />suggested that perhaps the Visual Preference Survey performed by DSU could be a first baseline <br />for design guidelines in the City. <br /> <br />4. Current Council Discussions: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Clark summarized some recent Council discussions for the <br />group: <br /> <br />. Redevelopment Objectives <br />I. Indy property - a gas station / c-store type use would be an acceptable <br />development <br />11. City Hall site - should be developed for some limited retail, clinic but not <br />townhouses. <br />lll. Chesapeake - will return to the Council in September for an extension on their <br />PUD. <br /> <br />. Time Extensions <br />i. Council discussed a way to cap time extensions. <br />11. The City Attorney would prepare a draft for applicants to sign which stated <br />that certain aspects of a development would be reviewed at the time on an <br />extension. <br /> <br />. TCAAP <br />I. Centex withdrew from the development team. <br />11. The development team currently is working on amending the interim <br />agreement. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.