Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 14, 2001 <br />AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITYADMINISTRATOR TO <br />EXECUTE THE CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF TH CITY; <br />'NOMINATING DENNIS CARSON FOR WATERSHED RECOGNITION <br />AS RECOMMENDED 73Y THE CITYADMINISTRATOR; <br />*APPROVING THE VOUCHERS <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Scalze, Montour, Anderson, Fahey. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />TWIN LAKE The City Administrator reviewed the letter from Len Pratt, Pratt Homes, <br />PINES requesting modification to the Twin Lake Pines Development Agreement <br />DEVELOPMENT as relates to payment of a cash park charge in the amount of $12,200 in lieu <br />AGREEMENT of installation of a twelve-foot wide, paved trail along Vadnais Blvd. The <br />Administrator indicated that this change is in line with the terms of the Joint <br />Powers Agreement with Vadnais Heights. <br />The second modification Pratt is requesting has to do with the ownership of <br />Outlot A. The development agreement requires that all property owners within <br />the plat share the ownership of Outlot A in common. The City's concern was <br />that the property not go tax forfeit and that it be preserved as a storm water <br />retention pond. Pratt is proposing that the ownership of the outlot be held <br />exclusively by the owner of Lot 12. The City Administrator indicated that to <br />protect the City's intentions either the request be denied or the City require that <br />Outlot A be combined with Lot 12 and that deed restrictions be placed on the <br />lot so that it could not be subdivided as so the retention pond is preserved. <br />Scalze pointed out the previous discussion that Outlot A be preserved as <br />perpetual open space, and that the Council's intention in requiring that the <br />outlot be held in common ownership by all the property owners in the plat was <br />so the parcel could not go tax forfeit. The Council also wanted to ensure that <br />the outlot is never sold and developed as park land or access to the lake. <br />The City Administrator felt it would be possible to combine the outlot with Lot <br />12 and then address the areas of concern with easements and deed restrictions. <br />Scalze again pointed out the City's intention that this outlot remain as <br />perpetual open space and ponding. However, the Council felt that there was no <br />need for park land in this area. Anderson pointed out that one of the reasons <br />for the common ownership of the outlot versus the City's ownership of it was <br />the issue of maintenance. Anderson suggested that ownership in common was <br />a way of making sure the property remained as the City wanted it given all the <br />