Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Thursday, March 15,2001 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Jennifer Chaput, City Planner~ <br /> <br />Walgreens Proposal <br />New Information & Options for Action at March 26, 2001 Meeting <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />The following memorandum outlines the City Council's options for action on Planning Case <br />#00-45, to be heard at the March 26,2001 meeting, <br /> <br />New Information <br />An important issue was brought to staffs attention today by a resident. Unfortunately, this <br />issue was mistakenly overlooked during staffs review of the Planning Case in December, and <br />subsequent Planning Commission review, but has a great deal of impact on the application for <br />minor subdivision. The applicant has been notified of this issue and apologized to for the <br />oversight. A specific staff memorandum outlining the issue and recommendations will come <br />before you for the March 26th meeting, <br /> <br />By allowing a minor subdivision of the Holiday Inn parcel, the Holiday Inn parcel would be <br />left without the minimum required oflandscape area (25% of the entire lot), creating a <br />nonconforming lot. It was pointed out that the reason the comer property was never developed <br />in the past was because the comer property is actually all of the required landscaping for the <br />parcel. Visually, it appears that there is an available site on the comer and that is why this was <br />not realized earlier in the process, If this had been identified as an issue at the outset, an <br />application would not have been accepted, Therefore, if a lot can not be split off, there is no <br />separate lot for Walgreens to build and all other issues beyond this are pointless in discussing, <br /> <br />Deadline for Action <br />The City of Arden Hills received a complete application for this request on December 6, <br />2000, Pursuant to Miunesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 4, <br />2001 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional <br />60-day review period, The applicant was notified, in writing, that the application would be <br />extended sixty days to April 5, 2001. The City Council must act on this request (using one of <br />the options outlined below) at the March 26th meeting, <br />