CCP 12-14-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 2, 1998 DRAFT 9 . . Commissioner Galatowitsch asked if this Code amendment is essentially a grandfathering. Mr. Ringwald explained, rather than a grandfathering, it is recognizing the existing ownership and makes a special exception. Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m., as no one wished to address the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sand asked if there is any likelihood, due to MNDOT's plan to construct a new bridge and interchange on Highway 96, that a condenmation could occur by an agency other than Arden Hills and would not fall under this exception. Mr, Ringwald indicated the statement could be changed from specifYing the City of Arden Hills to any governmental unit such as MNDOT or Ramsey County. Commissioner Sand expressed his concern that MNDOT could condenm a portion of a parcel and the exception would not apply because the condenmation was not by the City of Arden Hills. Mr, Ringwald indicated an actual example ofthis could be the Vaughn property where the Fish and Wildlife Department might purchase a portion of this land and this code change would not apply. Commissioner Baker suggested Staff should be careful using the terminology condenmation as it may force property owners to forego acquisition and go to condenmation in order to maintain . their rights. He suggested adding language referring to acquisition by a governmental entity for public purpose. Mr. Ringwald concurred with this suggestion. Chair Erickson asked for the sizes of the parcels which fall under this exception, Mr. Ringwald explained that there are 6,7 acres for the Indykiewicz property; 4 acres for the Nott property; 5 acres for the Grainger property; 7.7 acres for the Scholls property; 5.87 acres for the Round Lake Business Center, and 8.5 acres for the ATS property. Chair Erickson asked if the wording is sufficient to not allow existing properties to be subdivided. Mr. Ringwald explained that the City Attorney has assured the City that this amendment will not allow a property owner, after the date of the ordinance, to subdivide their property such that it would be less than ten acres, unless it was done by acquisition by a a governmental agency for public purpose, Commissioner Nelson noted that this is not spelled out in the proposed modification. Mr. Ringwald explained that by default a property owner would have to have 10 acres, unless the property existed before the ordinance, or a governmental entity purchases a portion of the property. Commissioner Baker asked if any of the lots listed which are under 10 acres will not be exempted because they were under common ownership in April of 1993, Mr. Ringwald stated that all of the affected properties were in existence prior to April of 1993. . Commissioner Nelson referred to subparagraph 5 (a) and wondered if a property owner could read into this and determine, since they owned less than ten acres before the date, they can do