My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020-042
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
Resolutions (1970's to 2020)
>
2020's
>
2020
>
2020-042
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/5/2025 2:35:33 PM
Creation date
2/4/2021 8:58:16 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
i. Condition No. 2 provides that no construction or use of the bus <br />terminal may commence until all items as outlined in the City Engineer <br />Review Memo dated May 30, 2018 (i.e. Ex. 7) and all other subsequent <br />construction plan memos have been addressed. (See also Ex. 2). <br />a. The School District moved onto the Property in October 2019 <br />and began using it as a transportation center. <br />b. The City Engineer has provided a Memorandum dated March <br />19, 2020 (Ex. 14.) which addresses the improvements required for <br />the Property. <br />C. Based upon the foregoing, the Council finds that the School <br />District is using the Property before the following improvements <br />were completed: <br />-Hudson Boulevard Improvements (Ex. 7, p. 2, Ex. 14) <br />-including Traffic Impact Study (Ex. 7, p. 2; Ex. 14) <br />-Municipal Sanitary Sewer (Ex. 7, p. 2; Ex. 14) <br />-Municipal Water Supply (Ex. 7, p. 2; Ex. 14) <br />*Storm water management facilities (Ex. 7, p. 1; Ex. 14) <br />d. The School District does not dispute that the improvements <br />have not been completed but blames both the Developer for not <br />completing the improvements and the City for requiring them. <br />e. The City does not dispute that items complained of are the <br />responsibility of the Developer. The CUP does not require that the <br />School District complete them. It simply requires, like any other <br />development or redevelopment, that the redevelopment be complete <br />before final occupancy. Contrary to the suggestion of the School <br />District, that is not an unusual practice. The School District has a <br />purchase agreement with the Developer and has a contractual remedy <br />to require the Developer to complete the improvements. <br />f. The City further finds that the School District created the <br />conflict with the CUP. There would be no violation of Condition #2 <br />absent the School District's determination to move onto and utilize <br />the Property despite the prohibition in the CUP. The School District <br />is responsible for this violation not the City or the Developer. <br />ii. Condition #3 provides that the School District must obtain <br />all other necessary City, State, and other governing body permits <br />prior to the commencement of any construction activity on the <br />parcel. <br />a. The City finds that the School District has constructed a <br />temporary septic tank on the Property without a permit and that <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.