My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 07-13-1992
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CC 07-13-1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:10 PM
Creation date
11/9/2006 4:32:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />Arden Hills Council <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />July 13, 1992 <br /> <br />In response to Council questions, Berg1y stated that one <br />possible use of the newly created vacant parcel would be <br />that CPI would purchase it for parking purposes. Parks <br />Director Buckley stated that perhaps the City trail could <br />then connect to CPI property. <br /> <br />Mike Nordstrom, representing Grand Met/Alpo Pet Foods, said <br />that condition 2 of the Planning Commission is that park <br />dedication requirements be determined and either dedicated <br />along with the division or paid prior to filing. He asked <br />if it would be possible to wait until the newly created <br />parcel is developed in order to allow input from a new <br />owner. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla stated that typically park dedication fees <br />are imposed as part of a lot split. In order to accommodate <br />Mr. Nordstrom's request, he suggested that before the City <br />stamp the deed, it include notations as to the need to <br />satisfy park dedication. <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Hicks moved, seconded by Mahowald, to approve the minor <br />subdivision/lot split, (Case 92-12) with the six <br />conditions spelled out in the July 1, 1992 Planning <br />Commission minutes, condition 2 to read: <br />"Park Dedication requirements are to be <br />determined, and the deed for the newly created <br />vacant parcel is to be stamped with a notation <br />that park dedication requirements must be <br />satisfied before issuance of a building permit." <br />Motion carried unanimously (4-0). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />INTERLM USE AGREEMENT/SITE PLAN <br />WHAT-A-RA~QUET SPORTS CLUB <br /> <br />Attorney Filla stated that rather than litigate this issue, <br />he and Attorney Ba1yk, representing Dennis Foster/What-A- <br />Racquet Sports Club, have discussed the possibility of <br />entering into an interim use agreement which would allow Mr. <br />Balyk's client to construct a tennis facility for a five <br />year period. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Council was provided a copy of the draft interim use <br />agreement. Filla explained that the agreement allows for a <br />three year extension at the end of the initial five years, <br />provided the developer requests the extension 90 days prior <br />to expiration of the initial five year period, and provides <br />data or information in a form acceptable to the City which <br />indicates that: <br /> <br />1) The developer has made a good faith effort to obtain <br />financing for a permanent structure but is unable to <br />obtain such financing, and, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.