CC 01-31-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I 1 1 I I I. I 1 1 I I 1 1 I. I Arden Hills Council 8 January 31, 1994 City Accountant Post stated there is a reduction in the rate if the City would assume a density of eight (8) R-3 units per acre as the City believes is permitted by the ordinance. This would produce a quarterly charge of $4.06 per Arden View townhome unit compared to $3.98 for a R-1 district household. On this basis, R-3 units would pay a 2% higher quarterly fee than R-1 property units. Councilmember Probst stated that, theoretically this development could have additional units placed at this location, however, it may not be approved at such time it would be brought before the Planning Commission. In addition, Councilmember Probst stated that the R-3 and R-4 classifications should also be reviewed and there should be some differential between these two district classifications. MOTION I Probst moved, seconded by Hicks to ask staff to review the calculations and formalize in the form of a resolution for the Council to take action on at a future Council meeting. Motion carried (4-0-1 [Malone abstained; all others voted aye.]) DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING RELATING TO THE 1994 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT: AND REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #94-13. RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE 1994 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Councilmember Malone noted that on the revised Resolution #94-13, the total cost amount was changed to reflect a cost of $394,800. Public Works Superintendent Winkel explained that the original resolution was drafted with the cost amount anticipated which was prior to the actual feasibility report being completed. The actual cost will be $394,800. Councilmember Malone questioned why Amble is being required to be a 9 ton road. Winkel stated he would look into this and report back to the Council at a later date. Winkel made note that there were two (2) resolutions prepared for consideration for the Public Hearing. As Engineer Terry Maurer will not be able to attend the February meeting, the Council will need to decide if they warrant it necessary for him to be in attendance at the Public Hearing. Discussion followed and Council concurred they preferred that the Engineer be present.