My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 11-26-2001
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCP 11-26-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:16:27 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 2:35:44 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.
/
158
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 CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 29, 2001 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Ms. Jan Bergman, 379 1 Brighton Way, stated she spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. <br />She noted she was in agreement with her two neighbors. She added the neighborhood would be e <br />affected by the additional vehicle and foot traffic. She stated Bethel College would be leaving. <br />She noted she was not in favor of the size of the proposed structure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem asked about the source of the resident's traffic figures. Ms. Piotrowski <br />responded her traffic numbers came from the County this afternoon. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the Council had several options. He noted the Council could act upon the <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and staff. He added the Council could request <br />more time to review this application as long as it provides notice to the Applicant by November <br />14,2001. <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish noted the application was submitted in August and the applicant waived the statutory <br />obligation for timely review. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the City could deny the plan. He noted the city had more discretion in denying <br />the changes in the Comprehensive Plan. He added ifthe Council did not think it an appropriate <br />time to amend the Comprehensive Plan, it could turn it down in its discretion. He stated if the <br />Council does not approve an amendment for the Comprehensive Plan, then none of the other <br />approvals are legal. He noted four votes were necessary for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, <br />Rezoning, and a Master Plan PUD. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he continued to have concerns about turns onto Cleveland Avenue e <br />out of the parking lot during rush hour. He noted he could see cars stacked up on County Road <br />E2. He added there is a planning issue as a city regarding whether or not they feel comfortable <br />about Bethel College expanding its campus outside of the area designated on the Comprehensive <br />Plan for Bethel College development. He stated he was not saying whether it was a good or bad <br />thing. He noted it should be considered because of all kinds of considerations. <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated she could not concur with Councilmember Larson. She noted <br />the issue was whether they wanted an apartment building on that parcel or not. She added she <br />was personally in favor of changing the zoning on this parcel. She stated a gas station was the <br />only thing that came across the desk on this site before. She noted the office complex never went <br />any place. She added it made sense to change the zoning. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated she was not convinced the Council had to change the zoning at this <br />time. She noted it had only been established as a Neighborhood Business Zone for a few years. <br />She added that in addition to traffic concerns, she had concerns about environmental issues. She <br />stated that if the Mayor, with his experience, had concerns about this site working, then she also <br />had concerns. She noted traffic was still a major concern. She added that if they were <br />considering an apartment building, she might be more inclined to see a smaller one. She would <br />like to see it on a smaller scale. <br /> <br />Mr. Panish stated this project was originally 60 units. He noted the applicant worked with staff A <br />to reduce the plan to meet the allowed density (12 units per acre). He added this density was .. <br />fairly low compared to the metropolitan level. He stated the Planning Commission grappled with <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.