Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – OCTOBER 13, 2014 4 <br /> <br />Mayor Grant suggested that the language regarding special projects be tightened up. He <br />reiterated that the JDA was made up of three residents of Arden Hills which could impact the 4/5 <br />vote. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holmes wanted all setback variances reviewed by the City Council in certain <br />zoning areas. <br /> <br />Councilmember Holden discussed the language regarding special projects and suggested that <br />staff review the amount of leeway that would be allowed by the JDA. In addition, she was in <br />favor of limiting the number of tilt-up buildings. She hoped to make TCAAP something special <br />and not just a typical development. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung believed that the Council’s greatest impact on TCAAP would be in <br />regard to how the water feature and water runoff are managed. He would have to be comfortable <br />with the Code in order to support it. He suggested that the 10-acre minimum for a special project <br />plan be decreased. He reported that he couldn’t support the current variability within Section 3.3 <br />at this point. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant summarized that the Council supported the 4/5’s vote for special projects, but that <br />the special project language needed further review. He believed that the Council wanted to further <br />discuss the criteria that would trigger the requirement for further review. He stated that the <br />Council supported the governance structure but needed to work on what would be allowed within <br />the structure. <br /> <br />Councilmember McClung asked how long the JDA approval process would stay in effect. <br /> <br />Mr. Norton reported that the City and the County could agree to change the JPA at any time. He <br />explained that when there is no more land for the County to sell, there would no longer be a <br />functional use for the JDA; and at that time, the City and County could discuss making the <br />authority “inactive”. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant asked the Council how they wanted to proceed with the Park Dedication Ordinance <br />discussion. It was the consensus of the Council to review the memo from the City Attorney and to <br />discuss this issue at a future work session. City Attorney Jamnik stated that state law provides the <br />Council with the authority to require the dedication of land through the subdivision process and he <br />advised the Council that the City Ordinance should be reviewed and updated. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant adjourned the work session at 6:53 p.m. to a regular City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Grant reconvened the work session at 8:13 p.m. <br /> <br />C. 2015 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy <br /> <br />Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that in preparation for adoption <br />of the final tax levy in December, the following information was included in the staff memo found <br />in the agenda packet: recap of residential property values (the Council has had this information in