My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 01-14-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCP 01-14-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:17:00 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 4:02:29 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.
/
99
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />NOVEMBER 26,2001 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />the Council does not amend the Comprehensive Plan, it would be a reason to deny the <br />rezoning, He stated that if the city does not pass the first two, there is no reason to <br />consider the PUD, He recommended keeping the record straight and discussing the issues <br />one at a time, <br /> <br />Mr. Filla explained the city has legislative discretion to adopt a Comprehensive Plan, He <br />stated all the Council would need to say that in the last two or three years nothing <br />significantly has occurred in this neighborhood to cause the Council to change the <br />Comprehensive Plan, He noted the Council does not have to worry about any standard <br />leading to rezoning. He added it was not necessary for anyone to prove that the rezoning <br />would be better than what is there at present time. He stated that would become a non- <br />issue. He noted state law requires a resolution to approve or deny this type of action, He <br />added the motion should be to adopt a resolution as outlined in this case by the City <br />Attorney. <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated her main concern is that this use is too intensive for the site, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski stated amending the Comprehensive Plan does not hinge on <br />this apartment building, She noted ifthe Council rejects this amendment, it would be <br />difficult to approve an apartment four months down the road on this site, She added the <br />main issue is whether they want to change the Comprehensive Plan or not. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he begged to differ with Councilmember Aplikowski's evaluation, <br />He noted a vote to not amend the Comprehensive Plan was not a vote against housing at <br />this location forever. He added that if there is a project that is so meritorious that it <br />caused the Council to rethink neighborhood business zoning, that would be one different. <br />He stated what is before them now does not meet that standard, He noted he was not <br />opposed to housing, He added the other proposals did not fit the site. He stated it was <br />going to require some sensitivity to make sure housing would fit into this site, <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson asked if the first needed a motion to deny the request to amend <br />the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Filla responded that it was important to have the language <br />ofthe resolution included in the minutes, He stated the motion could be: <br /> <br />Motion to adopt a resolution to deny a request for a change to the comprehensive plan <br />designation for this site from neighborhood business to high density residential, which <br />incorporates the following: <br /> <br />Whereas, Beacon Construction has represented that it is the owner or has the right <br />to purchase the following described property generally located in the southeast <br />quadrant of count road e2 and Cleveland Avenue (Insert legal description "the <br />Beacon Property"), <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.