CC 08-09-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9, 1999 4 memorandum of August 5, 1999. Ms. Randall stated the following condition have not been fully resolved: 1. Title information. 2. Construction specification for street utilities must be approved. 3. Right-ot:way from the south be required. Councilmember Malone suggested that, in reference to Condition II, the City Council might wish to consider an incentive to the developer by stipulating a willingness by the City Council to consider condemnation at the end of the 24 month period, were the condition not met. John Miller, City Attorney representing the City for this planning case, reviewed the status of the last conditions to be met for COlmcil approval of the Developer's Agreement, stating the appropriate process to be followed by the developer with respect to the title and easements, and the need to include those revisions on the final plat, with actual indication of the County's recording document number, prior to its approval by the City Council. Mr. Frank Rekuski, developer representing Josephine East, LLC, expressed his concern with the City requiring the 12-inch stormsewer pipe, when the lO-inch had already been installed. and requested that the City waive this construction standard requirement. Councilmember Malone asked for clarification as to why the pipe had already been installed. Councilmember Larson expressed his concerns regarding Councilmember Malone's suggestion for an additional clause in the developer's agreement regarding initiation of condemnation proceedings ifthe developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation. Mr. Rekuski replied that the Rice Creek Watershed District had approved the 10 inch pipe, and he was unaware at the time of installation, that the City had a more stringent pipe size requirement. Mr. Rekuski intimated that there was a delay in response time between the City Engineer, staff and the developer on plan approval. Councilmember Aplikowski expressed her desire to work with the developer, but stated that the Council had been more than patient and lenient with the requests ofthe developer, and she was not interested in entertaining any additional waivers from City process or construction standards. Councilmember Rem stated she was still wavering on the size of the pipe, and agreed with Councilmember Larson's concerns regarding negotiations between property owners being unduly influenced were the City to require a clause in the developer's agreement regarding condemnation proceedings being initiated if the developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation. Councilmember Malone clarified that his intent was not that the proposed condemnation be part of the motion, only that the Council stipulate, for the public record, that discussions had taken place regarding the possibility of condemnation as a possible legal option if needed, not that it would be the only recourse available, but in order to motivate the developer to finalize property negotiations for the required easements.