Laserfiche WebLink
<br />h <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, September 9, 1985 <br />Page four <br /> <br />length is adequate for their needs. Hicks asked the reason for a reduced road <br />length from 500' to 390'. Answer was, in order to reach a financial agreement <br />between both property owners. Hicks said his concern is "traffic flow". <br />Christoffersen said the reduced road length will not affect the traffic flow; <br />noted that an additional right-of-way will be needed from the Winieckis for the <br />shortened road (shown in cross hatch on the revised preliminary plat.) <br /> <br />Hicks asked if the Winieckis are willing to grant the City an easement for <br />the turn-around. George Winiecki said they had not dealt with this matter; <br />stated they are willing to work with the City, but can't say what we'll do <br />right now. McGuire said he will grant the easement for the street right-of- <br />way. <br /> <br />Hicks noted that the additional park land dedication appears to reduce the cash <br />dedication; said he is not willing to trade the cash for the area of park land . <br />which provides limited recreational benefit. <br /> <br />Zappia (attorney for McGuire) explained that this land does benefit the City; <br />reported that in arriving at the agreement between the property owners, the <br />developer has given up a great deal in agreeing to a 2/3 " 1/3 cost split for <br />the road; asked Council's acceptance of the park dedication (land and cash) <br />as proposed (1.6 acres + .54 acres x value of raw land). <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Hansen, that Council approve the revised Preliminary <br />Plat (8/30/85) with Parkshore Drive 390' in length, subject to the granting of <br />the additional right-of-way easement by the property owner to the south, and <br />subject to a park dedication by the developer of 1.6 acres of land plus cash <br />equivalent of .54 acres. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Proposed Improvement No. SS-W-P-ST-85-2, EdRewater Estates <br />Mayor Woodburn opened the public hearing and Clerk-Administrator McNiesh <br />verified publication of the Notice of Hearing in the New Bri~hton Bulletin on <br />August 21 and 28, and that notices were mailed to affected property owners <br />on August 28. <br /> <br />George Winiecki addressed the motion made by Hicks relative to the Parkshore <br />Drive cuI de sac easement dedication; asked if it could be changed to a <br />"temporary" instead of a "permanent" cuI de sac; expressed concern that they <br />may need this land when their land is developed. <br /> <br />Christoffersen explained that a '''temporary'' is usually for a one or two year <br />period, a defined -period of time; feels we need a "permanent" now; explained <br />that it can be vacated at a later date. <br /> <br />After a short conference between George and Jim Winiecki, George said they will <br />give the easement for the additional right-of-way. <br /> <br />Zappia said they now have a 100% petition for the proposed improvement <br />(Edgewater Estates), which appears to negate the need for a public hearing. <br />The public hearing was closed (10:40 p.m.). <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Sather, that Council adopt Resolution No. 85-42, <br />ORDERING CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT NO. SS-W-P-ST-85-2 PURSUANT TO PETITION <br />BY 100% OF OWNERS OF AFFECTED PROPERTY. Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Request for Proposals, LaSalle Partners, Northwoods Site <br />Miller explained that request for proposals is the approximately 27 acres <br />south of 1-694, north of Red Fox Road; reported we were working with Opus ... <br />Corporation when FMC asked for consideration for their proposal. Miller <br />explained that the request is directed to Opus and the City to put a package <br />together, including financial inducements. Miller reported that Opus is <br />willing to work with FMC to incorporate FMC in their development if possible, <br />and if this is desired by the City. Miller reported that the Planning Com- <br />mission was shown a preliminary sketch of the Opus proposal,not i~cluding FMC, <br />which he believes would be less intense than if the project would include <br />FMC. <br /> <br />McNiesh reported that she asked the kind of enhancements they are looking <br />for from Arden Hills; gathered from talking with them that' this could include <br />tax increment financing for the project and anything else City would like to <br />offer such as site preparation, deferment of assessments, or actually <br />putting in the needed streets and utilities. <br />