Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> --------------- -------~-------- <br /> ! I <br /> ,/ <br /> . <br /> I I <br /> i~IS~ _I <br /> 11 11 <br /> March 16, 1995 . <br /> rO\'RL'mC F.~G1~mIS File: 520-000.00 <br /> J 326 En"IJY Pori< Drive I <br /> St. Pcut, MN 55108 Mr. Brian Fritsinger <br /> 612,64.1.4389 City of Arden Hills I <br /> 1.8OIJ.888.2923 1450 West Highway 96 <br /> fox: 612'644'94A6 Arden Hills, MN 55112 <br /> I <br /> RE: BETHEL COllEGE <br /> SWM APPEAL <br /> Dear Mr. Fritsinger: I <br /> This letter is submitted as requested by the City of Arden Hills with regard to the I <br /> referenced issue. After our meeting with City Staff, Mr. Craig Hjelle of Bethel College, <br /> and Mr. James Unruh, we have come to some understanding of the basis of Bethel's I <br /> request for appeal of its storm water management fee. <br /> CMl ENGINEERING: <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL As you are aware, the property owner's initial appeal was based upon several issues, _I <br /> MUNICIPAL t4I1ging from the area being assessed to the amount of runoff contributed to the watershed <br /> MNNING from the property. It was determined by the Council at the November 28, 1994, Council <br /> SCUD WASTE meeting that Bethel College should not be assessed a fee for the area within the limits of . <br /> 5iRUCtJAAl Lake Valentine, It was also determined that the walkways within the property were not <br /> SURVEYING public right-of-way and, therefore, should be assessed for drainage contribution. <br /> ~Af?C I <br /> TtAN$PORT.A.TIQN The final issue that was discussed by Mr. Hjelle and his consultant engineer was the actual <br /> 2!..fCRlCAIIM€OIANICAl intent of the ordinance with respect to development. As you are also aware, the property I <br /> :NGlNEERING; currently exists under a Special Use Permit which states that the property may not be <br /> HV.ll.C developed beyond 25 % of its overall area. This percentage development would include the <br /> ~ERDISTRI8UTlON area of all building footptints, driveways, parking areas, sport and athletic fields, etc. The I <br /> SODA typical B-1 zoned property would be allowed to develop up to 35 % of its property with <br /> $Y'SieM CONTROlS structures and up to 75 % total development, as outlined above. This yields a difference <br /> between Bethel's SUP and the typical B-1 property of 50%. Pre~ousco~ndenceto . <br /> this issue stated that Bethel's SUP could be amended at any time in the future to allow <br /> additional development up to that 75 % limit, as stated in the City's Zoning Ordinance <br /> manual. I <br /> Bethel's contention with this issue is the actual policy statement of the ordinance. <br /> According to Bethel representatives, the inferred intent of that statement is that properties I <br /> are assessed storm water utility fees based "on an amount proportional to the runoff <br /> OfflCESIN: contributed by each particular parcel", not the zoning of the property. They support this. <br /> MINNEAPOUS argument with Ordinance Statement C.l, which states that "Land use for determining I <br /> PRIOR lAKE surface water management fees shall be the existing land use at the date of enactment of the <br /> Sj, PAUL I <br /> WASECA <br />