Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 9, 1999 <br /> <br />C' ' ~-." r. 'Ii"r <br />J :<'\;6i'{i.:~;u . <br />"'J'l...~~ <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />memorandum of August 5, 1999, Ms, Randall stated the following condition have not been fully <br />resolved: <br /> <br />I, Title information, <br />2, Construction speeification for street utilities must be approved, <br />3, Right,of,way from the south be required, <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone suggested that, in reference to Condition 11, the City Council might <br />wish to consider an incentive to the developer by stipulating a willingness by the City Couneil to <br />consider condemnation at the end of the 24 month period, were the condition not met. <br /> <br />John Miller, City Attorney representing the City for this planning ease, reviewed the status of the <br />last eonditions to be met for Council approval of the Developer's Agreement, stating the <br />appropriate process to be followed by the developer with respeet to the title and easements, and <br />the need to include those revisions on the final plat, with actual indication of the County's <br />recording doeument number, prior to its approval by the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Frank Rekuski, developer representing Josephine East, LLC, expressed his coneern with the <br />City requiring the 12-inch stornlsewer pipe, when the IO-inch had already been installed, and <br />requested that the City waive this construetion standard requirement. <br /> <br />COllncilmember Malone asked for clarifieation as to why the pipe had already been installed, <br /> <br />. Council member Larson expressed his concerns regarding Councilmember Malone's suggestion <br />for an additional clause in the developer's agreement regarding initiation of eondemnation <br />proceedings if the developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation, <br /> <br />Mr. Rekuski replied that the Rice Creek Watershed District had approved the 10 inch pipe, and <br />he was unaware at the time of installation, that the City had a more stringent pipe size <br />requirement. Mr. Rekuski intimated that there was a delay in response time between the City <br />Engineer, staff and the developer on plan approval, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski expressed her desire to work with the developer, but stated that the <br />Council had been more than patient and lenient with the requests of the developer, and she was <br />not interested in entertaining any additional waivers from City process or eonstruetion standards, <br /> <br />Councilmember Rem stated she was still wavering on the size of the pipe, and agreed with <br />Councilmember Larson's concerns regarding negotiations between property owners being <br />unduly influenced were the City to require a clause in the developer's agreement regarding <br />condemnation proceedings being initiated if the developer did not meet the 24 month stipulation, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone clarified that his intent was not that the proposed condemnation be part <br />of the motion, only that the Council stipulate, for the publie record, that discussions had taken <br />place regarding the possibility of condemnation as a possible legal option if needed, not that it <br />would be the only recourse available, but in order to motivate the developer to finalize property <br />negotiations for the required easements, <br />