My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2014/09/22
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
Agenda Packets - 2014/09/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:06 PM
Creation date
6/20/2018 2:48:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/22/2014
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/22/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
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
Mounds View City Council August 11, 2014 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Planning Associate Heller stated at the July 28th Council meeting the Council approved a 2 <br />Developer’s Agreement for Longview Estates. Since that time, Mr. Harstad has requested 3 <br />several changes to the required financial guarantees. She reviewed the various guarantees within 4 <br />the agreement stating Mr. Harstad has agreed to provide the City with $50,000 for the streets and 5 <br />$5,000 for the other guarantee. Staff supported the proposed revisions and recommended the 6 <br />Council approve the revised Developer’s Agreement for Longview Estates. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Council Member Hull asked if the $5,000 guarantee would cover the expense of the developer 9 <br />not completing the grading on the site. Planning Associate Heller explained this was the case 10 <br />and indicated Mr. Harstad had an additional guarantee in the amount of $25,000 with the Rice 11 <br />Creek Watershed to cover all water and drainage issues. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Council Member Mueller questioned if the City would have a developer’s agreement with the 14 <br />builders hired to construct the homes on the Longview Estate lots. Planning Associate Heller 15 <br />stated this had not been the practice of the City. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mr. Harstad discussed the grading process that has been taking place and stated no holes would 18 <br />be left open. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Mayor Flaherty recommended the site restoration guarantee be increased to $10,000 to cover any 21 <br />unforeseen expenses the City may incur. In addition, he believed that the street restoration 22 <br />guarantee should cover the expense of the entire roadway, curb and gutters being brought back to 23 <br />its current condition with no patches. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mr. Harstad did not believe that this was a fair standard to hold him to. He discussed an infrared 26 <br />process that was being proposed to remove the scuff marks currently on the roadway. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Mayor Flaherty wanted to be sure that Longview would be brought back to its current condition 29 <br />after this development was completed given the fact the roadway was like new. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Public Works Director DeBar stated it was not the practice of the City for developers to replace 32 <br />an entire block, but noted the roadway was jointed every 30 feet. He believed it would be 33 <br />reasonable for the developer to go from joint to joint if a section was damaged. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Mayor Flaherty asked if Mr. Harstad was willing to agree to the 30 foot section. Mr. Harstad 36 <br />respectfully understood the position of the City but had a hard time understanding why he was 37 <br />being held to a higher standard regarding the replacement of a roadway. He reported that he has 38 <br />paid taxes and assessments to the City of Mounds View for his property. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Council Member Hull asked if a resident with a sewer problem was responsible for replacing the 41 <br />street from joint to joint. Public Works Director DeBar stated the City tried to replace the asphalt 42 <br />from joint to joint and the centerline as much as possible for sewer or watermain repairs, 43 <br />however this depended on where the repair was needed. He explained that the infrared process 44 <br />proposed by Mr. Harstad was an acceptable method of asphalt repair. He believed the Council’s 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.