CC 04-29-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 2002 3 • UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case O1-28: Catholic Charities Sign Standard Adjustment City Planner Parrish explained the applicant was requesting a sign standard adjustment from the sign code to construct a 20-foot high sign where 16 feet was required. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the adjustment based on certain findings and conditions. MOTION: Council Member Grant moved and Council Member Rem seconded a motion to authorize Planning Case 01-28, Catholic Charities Sign Standard Adjustment to construct a 20-foot high sign where 16 feet was required. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 02-01: 4410 North Snelling, Minor Subdivision Mr. Parrish explained the applicant was requesting a minor subdivision to divide an existing 1.6- acre lot into two lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the minor subdivision request subj ect to certain conditions. Council Member Aplikowski stated she could understand the feeling about not paying the full park dedication fee, but she believed there should be some money paid. However, she did not • know what form they wanted to use to get to that fee. Council Member Larson stated the Code was pretty straightforward, and he did not see why they would proceed in a different manner for this minor subdivision. He stated he understood this was a transfer of property from the property owner to a relative, but the intent of the park dedication fee was to recognize this fee would recover some dollar amount from that property, which would benefit the new residents of Arden Hills. He stated he did not believe this subdivision should be treated differently, and if this was approved, he expressed concern this would create a future precedence. He stated there should be an appraisal of the property to find out what the current market value of the property was. Dorothy McClung, 4370 North Snelling Avenue, pointed out the parcels were joined at one time, but he was wanted to break the lots off again. She stated this was not a sale and there would not be multiple buildings built. She believed this was different than what was adopted when the Ordinance was adopted. She indicated the only market value was what the County had appraised this at. She stated it did not make sense to incur the cost of an appraisal when they were gifting the land. They were willing to pay what Mr. Parrish recommended in his report. Council Member Aplikowski asked if there was every a park dedication fee paid on this property. Ms. McClung replied there had been no park dedication fee paid. Council Member Larson asked what the difference would be between the County's assessed • value and an independent appraisal. Ms. McClung replied the homes in that neighborhood prices had varied and she did not know what the real value of the property would be.