My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-16-21-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2021
>
08-16-21-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2021 11:03:50 AM
Creation date
9/28/2021 11:03:39 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.
/
8
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 — AUGUST 16, 2021 5 <br />this parcel. The lot is considered nonconforming, and the City Attorney confirmed that a variance <br />for the building of a structure on the lot would be required. <br />Senior Planner Jagoe said the Council is being asked if there is interest in selling the parcel. If <br />so, staff will need direction on handling the variance. The City could process a variance ahead of <br />the listing, or disclose that as part of the listing that a potential buyer would need to have a <br />variance applied for and approved prior to closing on the property. Interim Public Works Director <br />Swearingen verified that water and sewer stubs do not exist for the property, so the extension of <br />services to the property must be connected at the City mainline located within the street which is <br />more costly as a result. This is additional information that would be beneficial to include in the <br />listing and would be at the expense of the future buyer to install. Also, Ramsey County has the <br />property value listed at $68,400.00. If the Council is interested in moving forward, Staff would <br />begin the process of listing the property and allow a defined period of time for offers to be <br />submitted. <br />Councilmember Holmes asked if the required setbacks would allow a home to be built. <br />Senior Planner Jagoe indicated they had run some hypothetical scenarios on GIS and felt they <br />could, but that a Future Buyer would need to demonstrate setback compliance as part of the <br />variance request. <br />Councilmember Holmes didn't like the idea of having more variances on the property, other than <br />the variance for a nonconforming smaller lot. She would want the buyer to know that other <br />variances wouldn't be granted. <br />City Administrator Perrault commented that the lot has a fairly steep slope. <br />Councilmember McClung said his concern is selling a nonconforming lot and he is hard pressed <br />to support it. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the driveway of the adjoining lot. <br />Councilmember Scott said the property doesn't seem to have much value to the City so he was <br />leaning toward selling it. <br />Mayor Grant said he would be willing to grant the 500-foot variance but didn't want to see other <br />variances to make it work. He wondered if Council would be all right selling the lot if the City <br />stipulated that no other variances would be granted. <br />Councilmember McClung stated he'd still have problems with that. <br />Mayor Grant asked what if the City were to take offers and the bidders had to submit drawings <br />in advance of the sale? <br />Councilmember McClung replied that would be asking them to put a lot of money into the <br />property when they may not get the lot. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.