Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 9, 2010 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned how the developer proposed to keep the houses from sinking, as this 1 <br />allegedly happened to a home on an adjacent property, which could not have a basement or 2 <br />second story. Mr. Harstad explained the laws in place for foundations and suitable soils were 3 <br />quite strict. He stated soil borings were completed and areas on the east were more suitable for 4 <br />building. Mr. Harstad indicated he would be willing to complete new soil borings for each lot 5 <br />before development occurred. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Council Member Gunn asked if the development would be done all at once or one home at a 8 <br />time. Mr. Harstad explained that one home would be built at a time due to the current housing 9 <br />market conditions. He indicated all soil and engineering work would be done at once. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mayor Flaherty requested the soil work be completed and that the site not continue looking like a 12 <br />construction site as Red Oak Estates does. City Administrator Ericson noted this could be made 13 <br />a condition for the approval process. 14 <br /> 15 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Hull. To Waive the Reading and Adopt of Resolution 7658, 16 <br />Version 2, Overturning the Mounds View Planning Commission’s denial of a variance request 17 <br />for reduced lot widths within a wetland zoning district thereby approving the variance as 18 <br />requested, adding stipulations 1.) the property owner will deed a conservation easement to the 19 <br />City along Silver Lake Road; and 2.) all soil work will be completed at one time. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Council Member Stigney stated the application did not meet the criteria for a wetland district. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Mayor Flaherty indicated he would support this development only if the green space were 24 <br />maintained along Silver Lake Road. 25 <br /> 26 <br />City Administrator Ericson noted if the variance was approved, the applicant would have one 27 <br />year to act on it or the approval would expire. 28 <br /> 29 <br /> Ayes – 3 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. 30 <br /> 31 <br />D. Resolution 7659, Approving the Purchase of a New Fuel Pump and Tank 32 <br />Monitor and Rescind Resolution 7651. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Public Works Supervisor Peterson stated on Monday July 26, 2010, City Council approved 35 <br />Resolution 7651 authorizing the purchase of a new tank monitor and fuel pump from Pump and 36 <br />Meter Services, Inc. of Hopkins, Minnesota, for the diesel fuel tank at Public Works. On 37 <br />Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Staff contacted the vendor to inform them of Council direction and to 38 <br />arrange for the purchase of the new tank and monitor. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Public Works Supervisor Peterson indicated the vendor then informed Staff that the quote he had 41 <br />earlier provided was for the tank monitor only, a new pump would be an additional cost. The 42 <br />vendor was informed that this information would need to be reviewed by the Public Works 43 <br />Director before any further action would be taken due to the confusion over the quote. Staff 44 <br />received two quotes from qualified vendors. Minnesota Petroleum Service of Columbia Heights 45