Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />NOVEMBER 26, 2001 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />has to improve that area by either taking more property or relocating that bridge. He <br />stated the apartment house would be very close to the access ramp. He noted it was just a <br />matter of time before they had another problem there. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Dave Carlson, 3535 Siems Court, stated he sat on the Planning Commission for 10 <br />years. He noted Bethel College was not in the housing industry. Mr. Carlson added the <br />developer said he was separating himself from Bethel College. He stated he saw no <br />difference. He noted Bethel College has a huge campus and has room on that campus to <br />build. He added they should look at what is happening with St. Thomas. He stated there is <br />a limit as to how big Bethel College can be. He noted Bethel College needs to face facts <br />that it can only be so big. He added Bethel College cannot be all things to all people. He <br />stated he would like to address the north athletic field. He noted it was an accident <br />waiting to happen. He added it was a mess during construction. He stated there was no <br />place to walk and someone is going to get hurt. He asked who was going to have to pay <br />for lights and a crosswalk. He stated it would not be Bethel College. <br /> <br />Ms. Karen Johnson, 3003 New Brighton Road, stated Bethel College has been a real asset <br />to the community. She stated it was a nice spot for people that want to live in the <br />country. She noted when the lift station was proposed, all they heard was that it would <br />bring up the value of their property. She added they were assessed on their taxes for five <br />years. She stated that at that time they were approached about putting in a lift station. She <br />asked if the Council really wanted prospective contamination. She stated they did not <br />want a convenience station. She noted they like all the open area, but something is going <br />to go in there. She added this is the best thing she has seen proposed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated that technically the city should address these issues separately. He noted <br />the Council should first deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He added that if <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 if the Council rejects this amendment, it would be <br />