CC 01-31-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I , I I I I I I Ie I I I I I I I Ie I Arden Hills Council 7 January 31, 1994 review the depreciation issue and how long would it take for Ryder to balance out the use of the improvements. Councilmember Probst stated he is very wary of a termination agreement as this use has been in place for over 30 years, and for whatever reasons, the City has not required this property to remain in an" acceptable" condition. Probst further stated a Special Use Permit is needed and if modification of the zoning ordinance is required, it should be considered. The City and staff should reach an acceptable set of conditions that the community can agree upon. If this cannot be agreed upon, only then should the City deal with the termination process. Hearing no further discussion, Mayor Sather reminded the Council of the motion made by Councilmember Aplikowski which is still on the floor. After repeating the motion currently on the floor, Councilmember Probst seconded the motion. Motion carried (4-1 [Hicks voted nay; all others voted aye.]). CONTINUANCE - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT APPEAL - ARDEN VIEW TOWNHOME ASSOCIATION Councilmember Probst commented that while he was reviewing the rate structure for the R-3 district he noted that, effectively, this development is being charged twice because of townhome density. Probst noted the ordinance is currently set up at various per acre charges for various zoning categories, and in fact that the per acre charge is partially an attempt to reflect that as you move up in the zoning classifications you have a higher level of hard surface areas and additional runoff. Probst continued that particularly in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, the charges are based on theoretical density. The concern is that the per unit cost for the R-3 development, is not based on the theoretical density permitted by the zoning ordinance. The first billing was prepared noting that the total acreage charge was divided by the actual number of units in the R-3 properties within the community. The fact remains that because the actual density is less than what the ordinance permits, there is actually a benefit in that they are not producing as much runoff as they would if they were developed to the full density as permitted by the ordinance. Probst suggests that Council ask staff to go back and recalculate the rate based on theoretical permitted densities.