Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />. <br />'. <br />. <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.. <br />I <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - MAY 13. 1996 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Coul1cilmember Hicks stated he has no issue with approving the final RLS as well, He inquired <br />if the RLS has any time limit before filing, Mr. Ringwald stated that once the RLS is approved, <br />the applicant has 60 days to record the final RLS or the approval is void. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks inquired what concerns Mr, Filla has with the covenant option. Mr. <br />Fritsinger stated Mr. Filla felt the covenant option would be simple, but may be difficult to track <br />if the land stayed within the family, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst inquired if the deed would change upon purchase, Ms, Buetow verified it would, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst suggested placing restrictions on both lots, Mr. Ringwald stated that language <br />could be linked to both lots, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst inquired if the RLS could be approved conditioned upon the City Attorney's <br />approval. Mr. Fritsinger stated that could be done, <br /> <br />Councilmember Aplikowski inquired if the lot sizes were equaL Mr. Ringwald stated that Lot A <br />was the largest, B the smallest, and C in between. Councilmember Aplikowski inquired if the lot <br />sizes could be changed. Mr. Ringwald stated they could not, as they would not meet lot width <br />requirements, <br /> <br />Mayor Probst stated the RLS could be approved subject to the City Attorney approval, as it is not <br />the City Council's function to decide on the mechanism. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks inquired what the cost of the RLS was, and if another RLS could be done, <br />keeping Tract A and B together. Ms, Buetow stated the RLS was approximately $2,000, She <br />stated she felt it unlikely the family would sell Tract B, but wanted to keep the economic option <br />available, <br /> <br />Coul1cilmember Keirn inquired if the family could do nothing and sell Lot] 8, Mr. Fritsinger <br />stated that future councils would be faced with the issue, and was concerned about future <br />regulations, <br /> <br />MOTION: <br /> <br />Hicks moved and Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #95- <br />23, Bart Buetow, Minor Subdivision, 1433 Forest Lane, subject to the conditions <br />outlined in the Staff recommendations, with Conditions 8 and 9 revised once <br />protected by either a covenant or other mechanism acceptable to the City <br />Attorney, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), <br /> <br />Councilmember Hicks clarified that the park dedication proposed by Ms, Walsh would still be <br />appropriate if the current RLS is filed, outlining the three lots, <br />