Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />McKee was unable to market this property in the market place with this "cloud" <br />over the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem joined the meeting at 7:18 p.m. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated if Chesapeake had a major tenant, he believed <br />Mrs. McKee would have a major advantage for negotiations. He noted he was not <br />convinced by the argument that the Council needed to do something. <br /> <br />Mr. Beeson replied the playing field was not level at this time and the concern <br />was not with the City Council, but the Council had given Chesapeake an unusual <br />leverage. He again asked the Council to exclude his client's property so they <br />could market it on the open market. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked what would happen if they did not grant the extension. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish replied Chesapeake could have to go through the process again. He <br />noted Chesapeake would like the extension, so when they had a tenant, they would <br />be ready to proceed. He stated in the past, the Council had no interest in a <br />condemnation process. He noted this property was a legal non-conforming to date <br />and it could be used as a manufacturing warehouse facility, but they could not <br />expand. He indicated Mrs. McKee was not obligated to sell to Chesapeake. He <br />noted Mrs. McKee could sell the property and let the new owner negotiate with <br />Chesapeake ifthey wanted. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked how they could "carve out" this property. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla replied they would have to conduct a public hearing to amend the plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated he did not believe it would make sense to exclude <br />this property from ofthe PUD. <br /> <br />Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Companies, stated they were attracted to this parcel <br />because it was in a redevelopment district. He stated the request for the PUD did <br />not affect A TS property. He noted A TS was a non-conforming use under the <br />Gateway Business District. He stated the PUD did not change ATS' ability to <br />market the property. He noted the limiting factor was the non-conforming use and <br />the PUD was not the inhibitor to a sale. He stated they did not change the legal <br />