11-30-15-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 16, 2015 4 Stacie Kvilvang stated she had to work with the County’s figures from approximately 1½ years ago but also has had discussions with the Ramsey County Assessor. These numbers are still within the current market value and are typical in other current residential developments. Councilmember Holmes asked for clarification of Scenarios 2 and 3 and wanted to know why they must give the City land. Community Development Director Hutmacher said the City’s ordinance offers both options as we want to make sure the ordinance works no matter what happens. Councilmember McClung stated that as there is no agreement with the County and also no developer, the City does not know if it must buy the land or if it will be dedicated; therefore, the new ordinance needs to work for both scenarios. City Attorney Jamnik stated this language must apply throughout the city for redevelopment and should be updated annually, if needed. Community Development Director Hutmacher proposed taking the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for public hearing on December 9, 2015, and then to the City Council for adoption on December 14, 2015. Councilmember Holmes asked what the difference was between a cash contribution in lieu of land dedication and a park development fee. City Attorney Jamnik stated the difference is that cash in lieu of land dedication means the City would receive cash instead of land, and the park development fee relates to the cost to improve the park with amenities and facilities infrastructure. Councilmember Holmes asked why the old ordinance states “as reasonably required by the City” and the new draft states “as determined by the City”, noting the difference between required and discretion. City Attorney Jamnik stated it is his view that it would be less beneficial to say “required” because a court could supplant its own logic and reason, whereas using “discretion” leaves the decision to the City Council. He stated this type of language is consistent with most of the park ordinances that have changed over last 10 or 20 years. Further discussion ensued regarding residential versus commercial and industrial dedication fees. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the park development fee amount would be included in the fee schedule and not in the ordinance as the fee may need to be amended annually due to inflation. Councilmember McClung said his concern is the City is going on guesses and hopes it is capturing enough from the beginning without having to increase the fees further down the process.