Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1982-119CITY OF PLYMOUTH Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meting of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 1st day of March , 1982. The following members were present: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembers Hoyt, en, — Schnieder and Threinen The following members were absent: none Councilmember-Hoyt Introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 92- 119 ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS TO BE MET RELATIVE TO APPROVAL OF PARKING PLAN AND VARIANCE APPROVAL AND LOT CONSOLIDATION APPROVAL FOR DICO ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED (A-475) WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the request of DICO Enterprises, Incorporated for approval of a Parking Plan and Parking Variances, and for the Consolidation of Platted Property at 1605 County Road 18 North; and, WHEREAS, the City has previously entered Into supplemental agreements with the petitioner as Gruman Steel (aka M. B. G. Incorporated); and, WHEREAS, the City has previously approved Site Plans and Land Division/Copse U dation approvals for the petitioner under Resolution No. 73-414 and Resolution No. 74-220; and, WHEREAS, developments and land consolidations directed by those Resolutions have not been realized; and, WHEREAS, the petitioner seeks to sell and convey a portion of the property which includes the south portion of the main industrial building whereby the ownership and use of the south portion of the building and related property would be legally distinct and separate from the north portion; and, WHEREAS, the City finds that It Is desirable and In the public Interest to amend the previous supplemental agreements between the City and the petitioner; and, WHEREAS, applicable State and City Codes require certain agreements and easements, both public and private, In circumstances such as those proposed where there would he separate and distinct ownerships and uses; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Of THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does direct the following conditions to be met In consideration of the aforementioned approvals: 1. There shall be filed as a Notice of Record against the Title of the property known as Tract A Registered Land Survey No. 942 a memorial of the variance approval in a manner and form approved by the City Attorney. Page 2 Resolution No. 82-119 2. The petitioner shall prepare and submit for approval by the City Attorney prior to filing, appropriate agreements cross -easements regarding shared water service; emergency vehicle access across the sites; and internal access between the structures including common liability for fire, theft, Intrusion and the like (the latter being in -lieu of the required fire rated separation wall). 3. Execution of an agreement between the petitioner and the City amending previous agreements and supple -,Intal agreements as ,ecommended by the Director of Public Works and as approved as to form and content by the City Attorney. 4, The Resolution consolidating Tracts A and B Registered Land Survey No. 1376 shall be filed at Hennepin County by the City Attorney. 5. The requirement of Resolution No. 74-220 requiring that Tract R of Registered Land Survey No. 921 be consolidated with neighboring prop- erty known as Registered Land Survey No. 1252 is hereby rescinded. 6. The requirement of Resolution No. 73-414, that Tract A Registered Land Survey No. 942 be consolidated with Tract A Registered Land . Survey No. 1376 is hereby rescinded unless, for whatever reason, the circumstances of the present petition change to the extent that the property remains under single ownership; in that case, the City shall consider the adoption of a Resolution consolidating the prop- erty into a single parcel, as required by the City Zoning Ordinance, with direction to the City Attorney that said Resolution be filed Immediately upon adoption. The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Threinen , and upon vote being taken thereon, the 0 ow ng voted In favor thereof: Counci members Hoyt, Moen, Schneider and Threinen The following voted against or abstained: Ma or Davenport . Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.