Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br /> <br />May 10, 198.2.' <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN <br /> <br />Resolutions ApprovinR Plans and Specifications and Ordering <br />Advertisement for Bids - Royal Hills and Arden Oaks <br /> <br />Resolution No. 82-29 <br />Hicks moved, seconded by McAllister, that Council adopt Resolu- <br />tion 82-29, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING AD- <br />VERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR ROYAL HILLS. Motion carried unanimoualy <br />(4-0) <br /> <br />Christoffersen described a change in the plans for Arden Oaks, <br />eliminating a sewer pumping station which is replaced by about . <br />200' of sewer - representing a savings of an estimated $5,000 - <br />$10,000 <br /> <br />Resolution No. 82-28 <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council adopt Resolution <br />No. 82-28, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVER- <br />TISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR ARDEN OAKS. Motion carried unanimously (4-0) <br /> <br />(Bid openings to be on June 10th at 2:00 p.m. at the City Hall) <br /> <br />Note: Bid opening date has been changed to June 17th. <br /> <br />Chriatoffersen noted that the City will have up to 40 days to <br />award the bids after the bid opening. <br /> <br />New BriRhton Interceptor <br />Council was referred to cost comparison between Alternate A, phas- <br />ing out the Arden Hills Lift Station #10 via a proposed Metro- <br />politan Interceptor located within the City of New Brighton, versus <br />Alternate B, upgrading the existing trunk sewer/forcemsin system <br />located within the City of Arden Hills. <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained that Arden Hills would be going into <br />Sewer District #2 if Alternate A is approved; noted that Alte~- <br />nate A is more economical than Alternate B, but is opposed by <br />the cities of Mounds View and Fridley; noted that Brooklyn Park <br />favored the proposed Metropolitan Interceptor. Christoffersen <br />said a public hearing will be held at some future date. <br /> <br />REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER <br /> <br />Case No. 81-29, Final Plat - Royal Hills <br />Council was referred to the Final Plat of Royal Hills, Planning <br />Report (4-29-82) and to the Planning Commission recommendations <br />(Minutes of 5-5-82). <br /> <br />Miller noted that seven lots are 85' wide at the setback line <br />(Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Blk. 2, and Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1); ex- <br />plained th.at these width variances were imposed on the developer <br />by the Planning Commission in order to preserve the area in the <br />northwest 1/3 of the site which is densely wooded with quality <br />vegetation. Miller said the Planning Commission recommends a <br />blanket 5' aggregate setback variance on these 7 lots, to provide <br />a minimum separation of 20 feet between houses; reported that the <br />Planning Commission recommends approval of the final plat with <br />the conditions listed (Minutes of 5-5-82). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In discussion, Eibensteiner said his appraisal of the property <br />ahould be received soon; will negotiate the park dedication after <br />thia information is available; noted that he wants to aee the bids <br />before entering into a Development Agreement. <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Johnson, that Council approve the Final <br />Plat of Royal Hills, subject to: <br /> <br />1. Execution of the Development Agreement. <br />2. Satisfactory resolution of the Park Dedication. <br />3. Award of Bid for streets and utilities. <br />4. Resolution of street vacation over lots 7 and 8, Block 2. <br /> <br />-2- <br />