CC 06-10-1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting, June 10, 1985 Page five The level of exterior lighting, and how it will impact the townhouse area, was queried. Miller said he recommends, in addition to the building-mounted lights at the main entrance and garage entrance, that low-level lighting be provided at the site entrance, at surface parking lots and at the out- door recreation area. Miller noted that the apartment building is on a high part of the site; townhouses are at a lower elevation; explained that he has recommended more intense berming and landscaping to diminish the height of the building; feels the low-level lighting is needed for security reasons; noted that the applicant is willing to cooperate. In discussion of the Parkshore Drive right-of-way, George Winiecki said they want to cooperate with McGuire and with the City; noted that they don't know their costs for the sewer or their costs for the proposed road; reported that the City Engineer has given them a rough estimate for the road at $20,000 to $60,000. Winiecki said they are concerned about their costs and don't want to commit themselves; noted that 14 brothers and sisters are involved in the property south of the McGuire property; stated the marketability of their property has not been good; stated they would like to have some idea, closer than $20,000 - $60,000 for the road, and would also like to have the sewer costs. Council was referred to the City's apparent four options to resolve the right-of-way problem (page 5 of Planning memo). The various options were discussed. George Winiecki asked Council if there is an avenue of deferring assessments until their land is sold. McNiesh said there are legal provisions to defer; reported that the City has never done this. Winiecki suggested waiting a month, pending City Engineer's cost estimates. Zappia said McGuire does not want to inconvenience his neighbors, but time is critical; McGuire wants to proceed with the project; is amenable to 1/2 private road access; asked that Council consider their petition for utilities and street construction. McNiesh noted that, if the project is approved, the procedure would be to adopt a resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition and Ordering Preparation of Report; noted that the petition is by more than 35% of property owners, which requires a Public Hearing on the Feasibility Report. Hicks moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council approve the Edgewater Estates Phase I, General Plan, the Preliminary Plat of the entire site, and rezoning of Lot 14 from R-l to R-3, subject to: 1. City Planner approval of exterior lighting plan and landscape plan. 2. City Attorney's approval of a recordable document allowing buildings on the flowage easement on lots 6, 7 and 8, block 1. 3. Resolution with neighbor of right-of-way of Parkshore Drive. 4. Reduction of length of Parkshore Drive to 500'; change in length to be added to park land dedication. 5. City Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans. 6. Resolution of park dedication requirement prior to apartment building occupancy. 7. Resolution of garage sprinkling issue requested by LJVFD Chief. 8. Conversion from rental to condominiums within ten years. In discussion, Peck said he has trouble putting a time limit on conversion to condominiums. Hicks said this was the way it was presented; feels property owners have "pride of ownership"; therefore, feels property will be better maintained. It was explained by Zappia that this time frame will cause a problem in obtaining financing. Applicant will not be able to turn a shovel of dirt with a contingency like this. Zappia explained that it is impossible to foresee what the market or financing will be in future years. Hicks noted that the Arden Hills Council is comprised of "reasonable people"; if the situation is such that the conversion is not possible in the ten year time frame, "I'm saying that I would be reasonable about it." Sather asked Winieckis how long they have been trying to sell their property; would like to resolve the right-of-way of parkshore Drive. G. Winiecki said three to four years. Sather suggested that it be built as . .