Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 24, 1999 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />City. He stated he has attempted to abide by the City Council's 1993 rulings in this case, and has <br />worked with the City and neighborhood to create a positive land development for all concerned. <br />The stop light at County Road D creates a safer intersection than a cul-de-sac directly entering <br />onto Lexington Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Everts reiterated that his company has attempted to contact the southerly neighbors <br />numerous times and has not received any response from them, but added he is encouraged by <br />what he has heard from them at this meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Everts stated the 5th condition relating to payment of escrow for future extension of <br />Shoreline Lane is unfair as it is unclear whether the road will ever go through, and if it does, <br />there will be properties from which to request payment. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated he sat on the Planning Commission in 1993 when the street was discussed, <br />and at that time it was not anticipated that any development would take place on the property in <br />question. He added that it would be unfair to assess new homeowners, and he is not prepared for <br />the City to take on that responsibility. <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated that whether or not the developer believes the escrow to be reasonable, the <br />City has an obligation to ensure that the community and subsequent Councils are not subject to <br />these kinds of unfinished business. <br /> <br />Jeff Miller, an attorney representing the applicant, stated that negotiations for access are currently <br />taking place with Mr. Bachman, and he hopes an agreement will be reached soon. He added that <br />the condition for approval referenced in the letter from Mr. Bachman's attorney with regard to <br />approval of the plat is unreasonable. <br /> <br />With regard to the 5th condition, Mr. Miller requested the Council consider a provision for how <br />long the payment would be held in escrow for the road extension, so the owners will get their <br />money back if no action is taken within a certain length of time. He added it would be unfair to <br />his client if the City held the payment in perpetuity. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller stated he is encouraged by the neighbor's comments and added he will attempt to <br />meet with them and resolve the issues. <br /> <br />Council member Malone stated the issue is a difficult one because of multiple lot owners <br />involved, and it is the intent of the City to preserve the right of way through Shoreline Lane as <br />lots develop. He added that properties in subdivision pay for installation of utilities throughout <br />the entire plat and expressed his support of the fee being assessed and the conditions in general, <br />which are appropriate. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone stated, with regard to the park dedication fee, he was unsure whether the <br />higher amount is justified according to what is specified in the Ordinance. <br /> <br />City Attorney John Miller stated a blanket easement is possible, and the Council might consider <br />a sunset provision on the easement across the parcels with the idea that there would be a <br />