My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-11-05
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10-11-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2012 10:46:46 AM
Creation date
11/14/2006 4:25:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />He recommended Council approve the request. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked how the plans were going to change. Diane Freeden, Chesapeake <br />Companies, stated they did not have that information yet, but they had given the parameters <br />provided by the City to their prospective elients. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated when this action was before them a year ago, he had indicated <br />that would be the last time he would approve an extension. He noted it had been almost five years <br />since the City had taken a thorough look at this and he believed the City should review this again. <br />He suggested Council not give them a one year extension, but instead a six month extension and <br />during this time the Planning Commission should look at the Master Plan POO to see ifthere are <br />changes that nced to be made. <br /> <br />Councilmember Grant stated he looked at thc Master Plan POO as a marketing tool for the <br />applicant. He believed a six month extension was unnecessary and he favored granting the one <br />year extension. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski agreed and she would vote in favor ofthe one year extension. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he did not believe the City was harming the developer <br />irrespective of what Council did here tonight. He indicated the developer had either a one year or <br />six month extension. He stated he did not see where there was any harm to have the Planning <br />Commission take another look at this. He believed that both the City and the developer would <br />benefit fi'om this. Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Companies, noted they did not like going through <br />this every year either. He stated it was upon the City's suggestion that they decided to develop <br />this property as POO. He noted a POO providcd a guideline that was much more attractive to a <br />corporate user. He indicated if they had a review the POO again, this was an expensive proposal <br />for them and there was no guarantee the City would grant it. He noted it was easier to market this <br />property with a PUD in place. He stated, however, they would be willing to go through the <br />review process, if requested. He indicated if they did not get a PUD, the City would end up with a <br />lesser quality development bccause they would need to stay within the zoning requirements. He <br />suggcstcd they sit down with the City and go through the Master Plan POO and talk about it <br />without going through a formal review process. He indicated if the POO needed to be modified, <br />they were willing to do that right away. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he was not contemplating going baekwards on the POO, but in <br />four and a half years, things have changed and he believed a discussion about the PUD would be <br />good. Peter Carlson, asked the Council grant the extension with the understanding that they <br />were willing to work out any changes with the City. He stated he would like to avoid coming <br />back here in a couple of months. He noted the final approval would have to come through the <br />City anyway. <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.