01-13-25-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL — JANUARY 13, 2025 12 Interim City Administrator Jagoe stated for the residential dedication, the City looks at the fair market value of the land for a cash dedication. She indicated the City did not get a value so the City had to go off of the value of the property today, as assessed by Ramsey County. However, she noted City staff has been provided with additional information as to the purchase price for the land for this project. Councilmember Monson stated when additional density is allowed, this typically means the developer will provide additional amenities, such as EV chargers or a trail to the park. She indicated the developer was meeting very basic standards and was still asking for variances on several more items. She reported to her, this was not enough for the City to offer additional density. She wanted to see the items that were missing included within the project plans, such as a path to Royal Park. She indicated the City was already struggling to pay for trails and this project would benefit greatly by having a trail connection. Mayor Grant questioned if the City were to count the wetlands, no density bonus would be required. Planning Consultant Hofer reported this was the case, noting the site was 10.74 acres with 119 units on it. Mayor Grant commented the PUD allows the Council to grant the density flexibility. Planning Consultant Hofer stated this was correct. Mayor Grant stated the developer will have access to the right of way along Highway 96 to the north. He indicated a trail could be established to the Highway 96 trail. He anticipated the church would have to provide some flexibility in order for a trail to be built to the adjacent park. Planning Consultant Hofer reported that while the applicant was proposing to plant trees on the house on the house of worship lot, there was limited work plan on the proposed Lot 2, Block 1. He indicated the applicant could ask to construct a trail on the house of worship property, but the church would have to give permission. Mayor Grant anticipated it would be in the church's best interest, to provide this amenity to the members as it would be nice to have a trail from the church to the park. He questioned if the development agreement could require the applicant to construct a trail to reach the park. City Attorney Bjerkness indicated City Code has the option, where a subdivision borders a trail that is identified within the comprehensive plan, the City can require the developer construct trail improvements to connect, but this would only be applicable to property the developer owns. Mayor Grant commented while the City really wants a trail connection, this would be on land the developer does not own. Rather, the church owns the land. Councilmember Holden stated this was a PUD and she was not seeing any special amenities included within the plans. She suggested funding be provided by the applicant in order to complete the trail connection to the park.