Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeti~g <br /> <br />September 14, 1981 <br /> <br />Christoffersen said that two contracts will be more costly than <br />under a single contract (up to and including the plat); suggested <br />sewer and water would probably be assessed on a unit basis for a <br />more even spread of costs. <br /> <br />Laughinghouse said he feels it is tha City's responsibility to <br />provide the utilities to the site; costs within the site, the <br />responsibility of the developer; feels it is not fair to be asses- <br />sed for cost of bringing utilities to the project. <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained that this is not an assessment bearing <br />tonight, but it is his understanding that properties receiving an <br />area assessment can later be assessed for direct ~ervice. <br /> <br />The road-cut to Sne] Itnp t"a~ discuc:;sed. ~rtl1er revieH.?c1 neiFhhnr- . <br />hood concerns, expressed et the time a retirement home develop- <br />ment was proposed; wanted Snelling to serve as the only access <br />to the site, with an emergency access only from County Pd. E. <br />Miller reported that when a single-family development was later <br />proposed, two access points were desired. It was noted that the <br />proposed access from Snelling is steep, but with an alternate <br />access, the Snelling access is acceptable. It was suggested that <br />since lot 1, block 2 is a single lot, a turn-around on the lot <br />might be the best solution; lot has 124' frontage on Snelling; <br />noted it is already a lot of record. <br /> <br />After further discussion re optional lot groupings for a 1~ to <br />acre park, McAllister moved, seconded by Wingert that Council <br />approve the Preliminary Plat of Arden Oaks, subject to: <br /> <br />OL <br />L. ~~: <br /> <br />1. Satisfaction of park dedication; park size and location <br />to be resolved by developer and Council. <br /> <br />2. Modification of plat as recommended by the City Planner, <br />to bring lots into conformance. <br /> <br />3. l\pproval of lltility and p-r8ding pl ans by ri t.v Enpineer. <br /> <br />4. Provision of "baml1'erhead" easement on Lot 21, Elock 3. <br /> <br />5. Modification of road alirnment to parallel the east <br />line of the excepted property to eliminate sliver of <br />land extending south from Lot 2, 810ck 2. <br /> <br />After further discussion of park options, Winfert moved to table <br />tile motion until the next Council meeting in order to see the re- <br />draft of the modified preliminary plat with a 1.5 to 2 acre park in <br />the area of lots 13, 14 and 15, block 3. llotion cRrried unan- <br />imously (5-0). <br /> <br />(Council suggested that developer work with Planner Miller on the <br />plat re-draft for CounCil's consideration). <br /> <br />McNiesh reported that she has received a petition from 100% of the <br />property owners requesting the City to install the utilities and <br />streets within the plat. In discussion, it was noted that an up <br />to date feasibility study will be needed to include internal plat . <br />facilities (current feasibility report only brings utilities to <br />the site). <br /> <br />In discussion, it was queried whether the feasibility study could <br />be completed, and the project authorized in time to include in the <br />bond issue. Concern was expressed re bonding for a project prior <br />to awarding bids (developer could back out if bids come in too <br />high). Chris toffersen suggested that a Development Agreement be <br />required, guaranteeing reimbursement of Engineering costs if pro- <br />ject is abandoned by developer. <br /> <br />McNiesh was requested to invite Bond Counsel Popovich to attend <br />the Sept. 28th Council meeting relative to bonding concerns re <br />this project. Laughinghouse said they had hoped to start grading <br />this fall; strongly requests City to put in the utilities. <br /> <br />-/. <br />