My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-15-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
11-16-15-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2024 12:08:50 AM
Creation date
12/3/2015 9:05:27 AM
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.
/
9
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
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION—NOVEMBER 16, 2015 4 <br /> Stacie Kvilvang stated she had to work with the County's figures from approximately 1'/2 years <br /> ago but also has had discussions with the Ramsey County Assessor. These numbers are still within <br /> the current market value and are typical in other current residential developments. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked for clarification of Scenarios 2 and 3 and wanted to know why <br /> they must give the City land. <br /> Community Development Director Hutmacher said the City's ordinance offers both options as <br /> we want to make sure the ordinance works no matter what happens. <br /> Councilmember McClung stated that as there is no agreement with the County and also no <br /> developer, the City does not know if it must buy the land or if it will be dedicated; therefore, the <br /> new ordinance needs to work for both scenarios. <br /> City Attorney Jamnik stated this language must apply throughout the city for redevelopment and <br /> should be updated annually, if needed. <br /> Community Development Director Hutmacher proposed taking the draft ordinance to the <br /> Planning Commission for public hearing on December 9, 2015, and then to the City Council for <br /> adoption on December 14, 2015. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked what the difference was between a cash contribution in lieu of <br /> land dedication and a park development fee. <br /> City Attorney Jamnik stated the difference is that cash in lieu of land dedication means the City <br /> would receive cash instead of land, and the park development fee relates to the cost to improve the <br /> park with amenities and facilities infrastructure. <br /> Councilmember Holmes asked why the old ordinance states "as reasonably required by the City" <br /> and the new draft states "as determined by the City", noting the difference between required and <br /> discretion. <br /> City Attorney Jamnik stated it is his view that it would be less beneficial to say "required" <br /> because a court could supplant its own logic and reason, whereas using "discretion" leaves the <br /> decision to the City Council. He stated this type of language is consistent with most of the park <br /> ordinances that have changed over last 10 or 20 years. <br /> Further discussion ensued regarding residential versus commercial and industrial dedication fees. <br /> Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the park development fee amount <br /> would be included in the fee schedule and not in the ordinance as the fee may need to be amended <br /> annually due to inflation. <br /> Councilmember McClung said his concern is the City is going on guesses and hopes it is <br /> capturing enough from the beginning without having to increase the fees further down the process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.