Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> DRAFT <br /> Arden Hills Council 8 January 31, 1994 . <br /> City Accountant Post stated there is a reduction in the <br /> rate if the City would assume a density eight (8) R-3 <br /> units per acre as the City believes is permitted by the <br /> ordinance. This would produce a quarterly charge of <br /> $4.06 per Arden View townhome unit compared to $3.98 for <br /> a R-1 district household. On this basis, R-3 units would <br /> pay a 2% higher quarterly fee than R-1 property units, <br /> Councilmember Probst stated that, theoretically this <br /> development could have additional units placed at this <br /> location, however, it may not be approved at such time it <br /> would be brought before the Planning Commission. <br /> In addition, Councilmember Probst stated that the R-3 and <br /> R-4 classifications should also be reviewed and there <br /> should be some differential between these two district <br /> classifications. <br /> MOTION: Probst moved, seconded by Hicks to ask staff to <br /> review the calculations and formalize in the form of <br /> a resolution for the Council to take action on at a <br /> future Council meeting. Motion carried (4-0-1 <br /> [Malone abstained; all others voted aye.]) <br /> DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING . <br /> RELATING TO THE 1994 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT; AND <br /> REVIEW THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF <br /> RESOLUTION #93-13, RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND <br /> ORDERING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF <br /> THE 1994 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT <br /> Councilmember Malone noted that on the revised Resolution <br /> - #94-13, the total cost amount was changed to reflect a <br /> cost of $394,800. Public Works Superintendent Winkel <br /> explained that the original resolution was drafted with <br /> the cost amount anticipated which was prior to the actual <br /> feasibility report being completed. The actual cost will <br /> be $394,800. <br /> Council member Malone questioned why Amble is being <br /> required to be a 9 ton road. Winkel stated he would look <br /> into this and report back to the Council at a later date. <br /> Winkel made note that there were two (2) resolutions <br /> prepared for consideration for the Public Hearing. As <br /> Engineer Terry Maurer will not be able to attend the <br /> February meeting, the Council will need to decide if they <br /> warrant it necessary for him to be in attendance at the <br /> Public Hearing. Discussion followed and Council <br /> concurred they preferred that the Engineer be present. . <br />