My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 09-27-2004
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCP 09-27-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:19:44 PM
Creation date
11/14/2006 3:35:55 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.
/
129
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 />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION / COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />AUGUST 4, 2004 <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated that hc thought Planned Unit Developments CPUD's) were more of <br />a ncgotiation, The developers always know what they want from the City when they make an <br />application, so thc City should know what they want from the developer as well. Hc stated that <br />the City needs to ask morc of the developers when the makc applications for development. <br />Councilmember Larson offered the following examples of building design: Cub Foods, with <br />additional dcsign requirements requested by the Council the building was made to look much <br />better; Concrete tip-up buildings in Round Lake Park, the developer said that was thc best thcy <br />could do and they are very unattractive buildings; D and Cleveland, the building looks very cheap <br />and should have used brick instead of the block and looked more like the Cox Insurance <br />building, Councilmember Larson also stated that PUD process should include some reasonable <br />expectations built into the process about the developers' intent to perform development within a <br />reasonably short period oftime, <br /> <br />Community Development Director Clark stated that one of the things that the City could do is <br />have an architect review plans on an escrow basis, similar to what the City Engineer does now, to <br />review the design aspects of a development. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Chair Sand said that there had been some discussion about design <br />guidelincs before, Design guidelincs will need to be done for TCAAP development. He <br />suggested that perhaps the Visual Preference Survey performed by DSU could be a first baseline <br />for design guidelines in the City, <br /> <br />4. Current Council Discussions: <br /> <br />Community Development Director Clark summarized some recent Council discussions for the <br />group: <br /> <br />. Redevelopment Objectives <br />i. Indy property - a gas station / c-store typc use would be an acceptable <br />development <br />11. City Hall site - should be developed for some limited retail, clinic but not <br />townhouses, <br />111, Chesapeake - will return do the Council in September for an extension on <br />their PUD, <br /> <br />. Time Extensions <br />i. Council discussed a way to cap time extensions. <br />11. The City Attorney would draft for applicants to sign which stated that certain <br />aspects of a development would be reviewed at the time on an extension, <br /> <br />. TCAAP <br />1. Centex withdrew for the development team, <br />11. The development team currently is working on amending the interim <br />agreement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.