CC 11-24-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 24, 2003 5 . make them as broad as possible. He noted this was going to be a very important document and they needed to be careful about the terms they used and the approach they were taking regarding how TCAAP was being divided now and how it would be divided in the future. He suggested they talk to the new Director of the National Guard and express their interest in the property in the future. Councilmember Grant agreed with Councilmember Larson. He stated they needed to keep a vision as to what might happen with the rest of the property and if the 774 acres became available, it could be easily integrated with the rest of the area. He noted this was an important document and there was no need to rush. He indicated they needed to make sure it is done right. Councilmember Rem noted they had been working on this document for a long time and she did not want to see this sit too long if it needs further revisions. Councilmember Holden also agreed with Councilmember Larson and noted they needed to mention the National Guard property as part of the TCAAP property. Mayor Aplikowski stated she realized the Vento Plan included the entire TCAAP property and not just the property they were addressing in this document. . MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to table this item until such time as Council had an opportunity to review a new draft of the TCAAP Vision Statement and Goals. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). B. Development A2reement: (Nelson) at County Road D & Cleveland Avenue Mr. Hellegers stated on December 9, 2002, the Council approved a PUD Amendment in Case 02-20. One of the conditions of approval for planning cases 01-30 and 02-20 was the execution of a PUD Permit and Development Agreement. He indicated City staff and the City Attorney have worked with Stephen Nelson and developed the Development Agreement, which was consistent with the conditions of approval of the aforementioned cases and which protects the City's interests. Councilmember Rem asked why this trail was six-foot wide instead of the required eight-foot wide. Mr. Parrish replied he believed there was a right-of-way conflict. Steven Nelson stated currently there was a six-foot bituminous path in the area and they were going to leave the trail the same size. Councilmember Larson stated he would like to see the development started, but he understood . they wanted to make sure they had a tenant. Mr. Nelson replied they had intended on starting this development over the past summer, but he had builder problems and they had to start the process over with a new builder. He stated as soon as the frost was sufficiently out of the