Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 9, 2002 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Donna Alexander, representative of SRF, explained what AUAR and EIS were, <br />and the differences, requirements and advantages between them. She indicated this <br />project was on an expedited schedule. <br /> <br />MOTION: Council Member Aplikowski moved and Council Member Grant <br />seconded a motion to approve Resolution #02-42, a resolution to <br />order an alternative urban area wide review (AUAR) for the Guidant <br />Campus in the City of Arden Hills. The motion carried unanimously <br />(5-0). <br /> <br />3. Chesapeake Master Plan POO Extension <br /> <br />Mr. Parrish explained in March, 2001, the Council had approved a Master Plan <br />Planned Unit Development for Chesapeake Companies. He stated since the <br />eighteen months timeline for submitting a final plan would lapse in the near future, <br />the applicant was requesting a twelve-month extension of the Master Plan PUD . <br />approval. He noted A.T.S, Steel, Inc. and HPMK, LLC were opposed to any <br />extension for reasons as noted in their attorney's letter dated September 4, 2002. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated he had read the correspondence from A.T.S. Steel, Inc. and HPMK <br />LLC's attorney. He indicated there were some recent Minnesota and National <br />cases that dealt with matters such as this, and most of those cases involved cities <br />entering into development agreements, which indicated the cities would exercise <br />their power of eminent domain. In his judgment, the facts in this case did not rise <br />to that level. He stated the Minnesota courts probably would not accept those <br />arguments at this time, considering the facts it had before them. He stated the City <br />at no time indicated it would exercise its eminent domain or interfere with A.T.S. <br />Steel, Inc.'s property. In conclusion he stated the City had the authority to extend <br />and if they chose to do that, the City Code gave them that power. <br /> <br />Daniel Beeson, Attorney representing A.T.S. Steel, Inc. and HPMK, LLC, <br />stated his clients were adamantly opposed to any extension of the 18-month <br />deadline for the Chesapeake development proposal. He indicated his clients were <br />opposed to this because there had been absolutely no attempt on behalf of <br />Chesapeake over the past year to acquire the property. He stated his clients had . <br />owned their property for 20 years, and had successfully operated their business <br />from the building. He stated his clients had not opposed the Master Plan PUD or <br />