CC 05-24-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 24, 1999 6 3. Lighting meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section V,E,3,a,b,c, and d. Rice Creek Watershed approval. 4. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. Planning Case #99-03, Josephine East L.L.C., 3183 Lexington Avenue, Preliminary and Final Plat and Variance Ms. Randall explained the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat consisting of four (4) lots on a 2.47 acre parcel zoned R-2 Single Family Residential District. She noted the request includes a lot width variance of 80 feet for all four proposed lots instead of the required 85 feet. Ms. Randall stated the applicant is proposing to dedicate Shoreline Lane on the plat for future development of that road. She noted a private driveway runs through this property which will hopefully be re-routed to the proposed cul-de-sac by the applicant working with Mr. Bachman. Ms. Randall noted a letter from Mr. Bachman's attorney was received requesting a condition that some details be settled before the plat is approved. She expressed staff s concern that Mr. Bachman would then have an unfair negotiating position relative to the driveway. Ms. Randall reviewed the 12 conditions attached to this case, adding the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planning Case including variances with the conditions. Councilmember Larson asked whether Mr. Bachman currently has northerly access from his property to Edgewater Lane. Ms. Randall stated that the Bachmann property currently has access available to Lexington Avenue and Edgewater Lane, via Shoreline Lane. Councilmember Larson expressed concern that the park dedication fee does not accurately represent difference between the property's assessed value and its sale price. He stated precedents set by the City indicate an appraisor should analyze the property to determine its fair market value. Mr. Fritsinger stated the City has reviewed county values in recent years and found them to be reasonable and consistent with the Ordinance process. Councilmember Larson questioned whether in other cases the numbers have been this significant. Mr. Ringwald stated in other planning cases the difference between the value for tax purposes and the sale price have not been as significantly different, but the Staff utilized a method that creates some amount of equity in the calculation with respect to previous planning cases. Councilmember Larson stated he is convinced that something more should be done than using the assessed valuation. He added there seems to be a significant difference, which argues for another solution such as splitting the difference.