Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES <br /> City Council <br /> December 10, 1980 <br /> Mrs. Scalze stated that the City tried to amend its ordinance to be fair <br /> in park charges, but the State law has changed what the City can do. <br /> Mr. Burrows felt that St. Jude's will not resist a park charge. <br /> Fahey suggested that a total park charge should be negotiated and the <br /> City could divide it to be payable at each development phase. <br /> Councilman Pladeau stated that the City Attorney can work out these details. <br /> Councilwoman Scalze pointed out that the Planner felt the ponding areas on <br /> the St. Jude's property should not be changed. <br /> Fahey asked the Attorney if the Council could grant final approval with <br /> so many things unresolved. The Attorney stated that final approval could <br /> be granted contingent upon the approval of the PUD Agreement. <br /> Fahey stated that the PUD Agreement should include the park charge. <br /> Mrs. Scalze suggested that the PUD Agreement include the dedication of <br /> Jackson Street. <br /> The Engineer pointed out to the Council that in the past many developments <br /> had private roads which were to remain private, however the City ended <br /> up accepting them as City roads. Mr. Burrows felt that this would not <br /> happen in the case of St. Jude's. <br /> Mayor Hanson stated that it would be up to any future Council to decide if <br /> they wanted to accept this as a public road. Fahey stated that the Council <br /> should go on record saying that they do not want this as a public street. <br /> The Engineer stated that he is satisfied that the drainage plan is adequate. <br /> Carley informed the Council that there is a huge ponding area on the property. <br /> Fahey questioned if the City should have an easement for the ponding area. <br /> Mr. Burrows again stated that St. Jude's would rather not give easements. <br /> Fahey stated that he would be satisfied with something in the PUD agreement <br /> to cover this. <br /> Councilman DeBace commented that if final approval is granted contingent <br /> upon the PUD Agreement, and St. Jude's does not agree to the PUD Agreement, <br /> there will be a hold-up on the project. <br /> The Attorney stated that he could put together the framework for the PUD <br /> agreement and the Council could fill in the details, such as the park charge. <br /> Mr. Nadeau introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION N0. 80-12-461 - GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF <br /> THE PHASE I PROJECT TO ST. JUDE'S MEDICAL CONTINGENT <br /> UPON THE EXECUTION OF A PUD AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY <br /> OF LITTLE CANADA AND ST. JUDE'S MEDICAL WITHIN 60 DAYS <br /> Page -4- <br /> <br />