Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 5-13-91 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />VALENTINE (Cont'd) May= Sather suggested all residents opposing the closure <br />of Valentine Avenue appear at the May 28 meeting ani <br />discuss =ncerns at that t:i1ne. <br /> <br />Mrs. Boesel advised the residents had suggested the signs prohibiting turns <br />during certain hours on the streets. <br /> <br />RES. #91-33; LIMIT <br />PARKING, ROYAL <br />HILLS PARK, NORIH <br />SNELLING AVENUE <br /> <br />Council was referred to a report from the Parks Direct=, <br />Public Works SUperintendent ani Engineer dated 5-9-91, <br />reconnnending limited parking on North Snelling Avenue <br />near Royal Hills park. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hansen questioned if there will be sufficient parking with the <br />restriction = if it will be necessary to create a parking area near the park. <br /> <br />'!he Parks Director explained there should be sufficient parking without creating <br />a parking lot; noted several area residents walk to the park. <br /> <br />councilmember Mahowald stated there does not appear to be a problem with traffic <br />or parking during the times he has viewed the area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone verified the park is utilized extensively during the spring <br />ani summer ani there is a safety =ncern with children crossing the street. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Malone moved, seconded by Hansen, to adopt Resolution No. <br />91-33, RESOImION AUIHORIZING NO PARKING AREA ON THE EAST AND WFSI' SIDE OF NORm <br />SNELLING AVENUE AND INSTALIATION OF A CROSSWAIK NEAR ROYAL HILLS PARK. Motion <br />carried unaniJoously. (5-0) <br /> <br />ORD. #281; PARK <br />DEDICATION FEFS <br /> <br />Council was referred to a :memorandum from the Clerk <br />lIdministrator dated 5-1-91, relative to amenling the <br />park dedication ordinance. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla explained the proposed ordinance was drafted to in=rporate <br />changes in state law into the city Code. He stated the draft amendment was <br />reviewed by the Planning Canmission ani two changes were prqx:>sed: <br /> <br />1. Deleting the word ''maximum'', from the percentage of dedication required in <br />=njunction with residential development. '!he Canmission determined there may <br />be circumstances where more than the percentages listed may be appropriate <br />ani did not wish to be held to a maximum percentage. <br /> <br />2. Eliminating the time-frame f= payment of the fees by stating the fees must <br />be paid in full prior to issuance of Wilding permits for a suJ:x:livision or <br />minor suJ:x:livision; paragraph 5, page 2. 'Ihe Canmission determined the City <br />should not be in the b.1siness of financing the costs f= developers over a <br />period of t:i1ne. Filla stated there may have been difficulty receiving <br />payments from some developers f= such fees. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'Ihe Parks Canmittee agreed with the prqx:>sed ordinance ani the changes <br />reconnnended by the Planning Canmission. <br /> <br />councilmember Mahowald stated the deletion of the word rnaxi1num does not appear to <br />be significant, however, in terms of past practise, payment prior to issuance of <br />a Wilding permit is a substantial change. He suggested there may be a benefit to <br />allowing the payment over a period of time with interest, if the amotUlt <br />negotiated is substantial. He questioned if collection has been a problem. <br />