03-14-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

c ? 1 74 i4ana%a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117 -1600 (651) 766 -4029 / FAX: (651) 766 -4048 Email: cityhall@ci.little-eanada.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Fahey & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: March 9, 2001 RE: Amendments to Twin Lake Pines Development Agreement MAYOR Michael I. Fahey COUNCIL Beverly Scalze Jim LaValle Matt Anderson Rick Montour ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson Attached is a letter we received from Len Pratt regarding changes to his Development Agreement with us. The first change he suggests relates to Paragraph 13(b) involving Park Dedication requirements. That provision is as follows: "b. Developer shall install a twelve -foot wide, paved trail along Vadnais Boulevard from its current termination in John Mitchell Preserve in Vadnais Heights to Twin Lake Boulevard. Said installation or any substitute proposal shall be subject to approval by the City, the City of Vadnais Heights, and Ramsey County Public Works." After further discussion between the two cities and Mr. Pratt, we had decided upon a cash deposit of $12,200 payable from the Developer. This language is reflected in our Joint Powers Agreement with Vadnais Heights. Therefore, I would recommend we amend this provision to reflect the current agreement. The second change deals with the ownership of Outlot A. The original language is as follows: "Owners of Lots 1 -2, Block 1 and Lots 1 -12, Block 2 shall each have an undivided interest in Outlot A for the purposes of ongoing maintenance and the payment of real - estate taxes. Outlot A shall be preserved and maintained as appropriate for a ponding area." Mr. Pratt has proposed that the owner of Lot 12, Block 2 shall be the exclusive owner of that property. That proposal creates the exact situation we were trying to avoid. Our initial goal of having all owners with an undivided interest in Outlot A would make it very difficult for that parcel to go tax forfeit. Mr. Pratt's proposal would create a situation whereby the owner of Lot 12 could choose not to pay taxes on the outlot because it would be a separate parcel. As a result, I believe we need to continue with our original language or else require Mr. Pratt to re -plat Outlot A and Lot 12 into one lot to eliminate the tax forfeiture possibility. This would also require dedication an easement equal in size to Outlot A and with the same restrictions as to use. Cc: Len Pratt Page 7