Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Minutes of the ArdeD Hills Regular COUDCll. lVlee"ClIlg, .L-L7-7V <br />. . Page 3 <br /> PUBLIC HRING (Cont'd) Ambrose Indykiewicz questioned if the business will be <br /> allowed to continue operation. <br />. Bergly stated it is his understanding the current use of the property is a <br /> nonconforming use which does not conform with the. present zoning of the property; <br /> the use may continue to operate as long as it is not changed nor expanded. He <br /> advised if the present use is discontinued for a period of time it would be <br /> possible for the City to require a phaseout of tlle current use. <br /> The Planner commented it would not be the intent of the City to take action to <br /> acquire the parcel or to offer to developers for development of the GB District; <br /> if developers look at the entire tract it may be they will take action to obtain <br /> the parcel. <br /> Ambrose Indykiewicz questioned if tax~s on the parcel will increase due to the <br /> rezoning of this area. <br /> Bergly explained the rezoning itself would not change the tax structure of this <br /> parcel; stated it is possible taxes will increase as the area is upgraded and <br /> land becomes more valuable an increase will be imposed. <br /> Councilmember Malone noted the taxes ,Ire based on improvements to the property <br /> rather than the land itself. <br /> Ambrose Indykiewicz asked for an explanation of what will occur in regards to the <br /> roadway realignment if the rezoning is approved. <br /> Planner Bergly stated the rezoning of the property and the development of the <br />. .property are two separate issues. He advised the rezoning will not implement the <br /> plan to develop the property, it merely sets in place the possibility for <br /> developers to review the pIau and see how the area could be developed. He noted <br /> the roadway alignment and land uses are designated in the Comprehensive Plan and <br /> that is forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review and recommendation; the <br /> roadway could possibly be changed or relocated in the future. <br /> George Indykiewicz, 1920 W. Highway 96, questioned if the existing business will <br /> have to upgrade to conform to the guidelines in the GB District. <br /> Planner Bergly stated the business will be allowed to continue its present use <br /> until such time as the property is sold to a developer or the City determines the <br /> need for access to the remainder of the property and proceeded to acquire land <br /> for street right-of-way. <br /> George Indykiewicz questioned if a br:lge from this area across 1-35W is still <br /> being proposed and if the bridge is utilized will it change the realignment of <br /> the roadway through his property. <br /> Mayor Sather explained the proposed bridge is included in the plan submitted to <br /> the Metropolitan Council for their review and recommendation. He noted it is <br /> possible development on this property T~ill not occur within the next 10 years. <br /> Councilmember Mahowald commented that the proposed bridge is not being considered <br /> as the primary access to the properties included in the GB District. <br />. Planner Bergly agreed that traffic will have to proceed to Highway 96 and the <br /> bridge will provide some minor outlet for traffic circulation through the area in <br /> both New Brighton and Arden Hills; it will not substitute for the realignment at <br /> Highway 96. <br /> George Indykiewicz asked how long it will be before development occurs in this <br /> area. <br /> -- ---- <br />