My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 05-26-1987
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
CC 05-26-1987
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:08:09 PM
Creation date
11/3/2006 2:51:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />, Minutes of the Regula~uncil Meeting, May 26. 1987 . <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />ARDEN OAKS CT. <br />LIGHTING REQ. <br /> <br />Council was referred to Public Safety/Works Committee <br />minutes of 5-21-87; relative to a request for residents <br />of Arden Oaks Court to place decorative street lights <br />on their properties in the City's easement. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />David Angell and Gary Kremer. residents of Arden Oaks Court, were present and <br />advised Council that they would like to install, at their own expense, <br />decorative streets lights on each of the seven lots in the cul-de-sac. They <br />stated that the street is dark, there has been vandalism in the area and it is <br />their opinion the lights would promote a safer neighborhood environment. Kremer <br />stated the residents would pay for the installation, electricity and <br />maintenance, however, they are requesting permission to place the lights near <br />the curb, in the City's easement. <br /> <br />Council discussed whether or not the placement of the lights would interfere <br />with snowplowing and questioned liability for damage to the lights. <br /> <br />Paul Malone, member of the PS/W Committee. advised Council the Committee <br />members were not opposed to the lighting concept; their concern was in setting <br />a preceden~ by allowing placement in the City's easement. Since the meeting, <br />however, Malone noted that he has seen other areas of the City where the lights <br />are placed on the easement. <br /> <br />Kremer commented that the <br />may aid the plowing crews <br />plowing in the area. <br /> <br />light placement, near the curb boxes and mailboxes, <br />in determining how far away they should stay when <br />. <br /> <br />. In discussion, it was noted that there would be seven lights which are powered <br />individually to each home, therefore, the homeowner assumes responsibility for <br />maintenance and installation. Council concurred that the lights should be <br />placed no closer than the curb boxes, approximately 3 ft. from the curb, and <br />preferably behind the boxes. <br /> <br />Moved by Hansen, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br />the request for the residents of Arden Oaks Court to install and maintain, at <br />their expense, decorative street lights on their respective properties upon the <br />City's easement; contingent upon the placement of the lights being in line with <br />or behind the existing curb boxes on their properties and in no case closer <br />than 3 feet to the curb. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />WATERMAIN EXT. <br />AGREEMENT <br /> <br />Public Works Supervisor Raddatz advised Council that he <br />prefers to withdraw his request for extension of the <br />watermain on public right-of-way to serve his property <br />stated the Engineering costs were, in his opinion, <br /> <br />on Round Lake. He <br />exorbitant. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />PARK DEDICATION <br />EDGEWATER EST. <br /> <br />Council was referred to letter from Attorney Thomas <br />Zappia, dated 5-13-87, regarding the Park Dedication <br />fee for Edgewater Estates. <br /> <br />Councilman Sather explained the proposal of 1.6 acres of land and an additional <br />monetary fee equal to .54 acres of land which was calculated at $1,435.80. <br />Sather recommended Council approval of the proposed park dedication; he also <br />advised that Mr. McGuire would request an occupancy certificate in July, <br />however, there are two conditions stipulated that would have to be met prior to <br />issuance of the certificate: 1. Approval of the garage sprinkling issue from <br />the LJVFD Fire Chief and 2. Approval of the exterior lighting and landscape <br />plans. <br /> <br />Councilmember Winiecki stated she would prefer to see more information on how <br />the land values were calculated. <br /> <br />Council discussed the possibility of contacting Ramsey County to obtain the <br />figures for the sale price of the land for comparison with the estimated market <br />values listed in Zappia's letter. Sather noted the park land dedication <br />provides the City access to a park parcel and reminded Council of McGuire's <br />inconvenience during construction of this land due to the construction of the <br />sewer interceptor. He also stated that the land was unimproved and the <br />developer paid his own improvement costs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Sather moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve <br />the park dedication for Edgewater Estates, as outlined in the letter from <br />Attorney Thomas Zappia (5-13-87), of 1.6 acre parcel of land and monetary fee <br />equal to .54 acres of land calculated at $1,435.80, contingent upon the garage <br />sprinkling system issue being approved by Fire Chief Winkel and the landscape <br />and exterior lighting plan approval by Council. Motion carried. (Sather Hansen, <br />Peck, Woodburn voting in favor; Winiecki opposed) (4-1) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.