Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />JULY 26, 2004 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />CounciImember Larson stated his concern was not with extensions, but what North Heights had <br />proposed and what they had dealt with in other extensions. He indicated when Council acted on <br />those other extensions it was the Council's understanding that the applicant intended to perform <br />within a certain period oftimc, where North Heights was requesting an unreasonable period of <br />time. He stated he did not want the City to be used in a speculative manner. He believed what <br />the church was doing was speculative. He stated extensions were important, but he wanted some <br />type of an indication that applicants intended to go forward and do something within a reasonable <br />time frame. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski disagreed with Councilmember Larson's comments. She stated North <br />Heights did intend to do something and she did not see anything wrong with them coming to the <br />City to see if what they were proposing was feasible and then raising the money. She asked how <br />the Council wanted the City to be viewed. Did they want to take a rirn1 stand or be more <br />flexible? She stated she wanted the City to be flexible and open to new projects coming in, <br />especially with TCAAP coming. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated an owner of a parcel of property had the right to develop the <br />property as long as it followed the City Codes, He noted an owner also had a right not to develop <br />their property if they chose not to. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked how long of a period of time should an applicant have to keep <br />extending the plan before Council did not allow any more extensions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant replied he believed 48 months was reasonable, as long as a second <br />extension had a public hearing. <br /> <br />Couneilmember Rem stated there were a few large non-profit entities in the City and they <br />needed to realize that these types of entities needed time to raise funds for their developments. <br />She asked the City to maintain some flexibility in this process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated staff could look at this again and come up with some type of an end process. <br />He stated he was not sure there was a solution to Couneilmember Larson's concerns. <br /> <br />Couneilmember Larson stated he was not against extension requests. He realized it was <br />important for businesses to see if a development they wanted to build was feasible and maybe the <br />City should be looking at some type of a concept plan for these types of developments without <br />going any further until applicant was ready to build. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked what period of time that would be deemed to be reasonable. Couneilmember <br />Larson stated he was interested in what happened up front. <br /> <br />Mr. Filla stated the City could revise their completed application standard to include the <br />concerns Couneilmember Larson had outlined, including an intention to develop. However, if <br />they were going to grant extensions, at some point they needed to look at changes in law, and <br />they should include criteria for requested extensions and the applicant should agree to comply <br />