My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 09-08-2003
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CC 09-08-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:11:27 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 1:40:54 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.
/
11
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />5. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />6. COMMUNITY SERVICES <br /> <br />A. PlanniDl!: Case No. 01-05: Chesaveake Master Plan PUD Extension <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish stated the applicant was requesting an extension of the previously <br />approved Master Plan PUD. He indicated staff had sent a letter to ATS Steel <br />representatives informing them of the extension request. He noted the City <br />Attorney indicated there were no significant legal implications if the extension <br />were to be granted again. He stated, however, the applicant was requesting a 24- <br />month extension, but since the City's development regulations could change over <br />a 2-year period, staff would suggest a l2-month extension instead. He noted the <br />owners of ATS Steel were objecting to the l2-month extension. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant asked why staff was reconunending 12 months instead of <br />24 months. <br /> <br />Mr, Parrish replied in the event development regulations were changed, staff <br />believed two years was too long of a period to have this reevaluation. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated good faith negotiations between the two parties should not be an <br />issue for the Council to consider. He indicated these negotiations were private and <br />did not involve the City. <br /> <br />Daniel Beeson, representative for Peggy and Mark McKee, stated Mrs. McKee <br />has been actively engaged in marketing the property for its fair market value since <br />fall 2000. He stated his clients were adamantly opposed to the extension of the <br />PUD as it related to their property. He noted this developer had two and one-half <br />years to develop this property, which they have not done. He stated condition <br />number 14, required the acquisition of the McKee parcel and he did not believe <br />Chesapeake had negotiated in good faith. He stated the condition did not give any <br />incentive for Chesapeake to negotiate in good faith, and he noted his clients had <br />been harmed by this condition. He asked the Council to deny the extension, <br />exclude the McKee property, or start a condemnation proceeding. He stated Mrs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.