My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1979-03-12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
COMMISSION_MINUTES_1979-03-12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 11:55:52 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 9:24:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
January 30, 1979 <br />Dan Engelsma, Vice President <br />Kraus/Anderson of St. Paul <br />Development Corporation <br />523 South EigNk Street <br />Minneapolis, fM! 55404 <br />Dear Mr. Enyelsma: <br />Enclosed are three maps with overlays outlini�g the proposals for land <br />acqutsition as they have evolved during the past mAnth. In addition I <br />have included a brief staff report capsulizing the recent progress to <br />the Lity Council. <br />A brief description of the three maps and tt�eir background is as foltows: <br />Exhibit A- This was the City's orlginal proposal presented to <br />Mr. Cremers on Decertber 27, 1978, outlining the City's need for <br />34.6 acres of proper;y. During that neeting I discussed 0ith <br />Mr. Creaers the enclosed outl5ne of !rinimal requireirents the <br />Lity would require and he agreed wiYh each of them without hesi- <br />tation. Following what I felt was a pusitive meeting he directed <br />me to contact Oevelopment Concepts to draft a compromisA plan Por <br />his review upon his return from Hawaii. We did rreet wiLh Develop- <br />aent Concepts and arrived at ExhiS±t B as our comnon proposal. <br />E�ibft B- This is the exact drawing that was agreed upon by <br />both the City and Devetopnent Concapts as a viable i�lternat7ve. <br />Devetopment Loncepts staff made it clear that ihey were Sn no <br />posit7on Lo approve a final proposal as they were merely a design <br />firm under contract with your firm. The Lity in turn informed <br />them that we were nct able to make the final mandate as both the <br />City Park Board and Council would need to revSew the proposal. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.