Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 27, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether the letter of agreement between Mr. Heltzer and the 1 <br />Church can be added as a condition. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Attorney Riggs explained that the letter could become a condition. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Mr. Heltzer said that if this comes back for further subdivision, then there is a different property 6 <br />owner involved, and he is concerned about how his utilities will be handled and who is 7 <br />responsible to obtain the easements. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mr. Heltzer indicated that he does not agree to that letter at all. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Attorney Riggs indicated that if this subdivision does not require moving utilities, then this 12 <br />would not be necessary. He then said that there could be a condition that any further subdivision 13 <br />requires moving the utilizes, and that cost is to be born by the developer but, at this time, that is 14 <br />premature as there is no request for further subdivision. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Council Member Mueller said she is concerned about adding the letter because it may seem that 17 <br />the City is going along with any plans for future development and that is not the case. 18 <br /> 19 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Marty. To Amend Resolution 7129 to Raise the Park Dedication 20 <br />Fee to Option 3 at 10% for $8,655.00. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Stigney said that this is a major subdivision whether or not they are a Church 23 <br />and he feels that $8,655.00 is a fair amount. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Flaherty indicated he went with the Staff recommendation and the reasons are 26 <br />that this subdivision has no impact on the City’s park system. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Council Member Stigney said that he feels that the park dedication fee should be applied to the 29 <br />subdivided parcel. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Mayor Marty agreed and said that he feels that the park dedication fee should apply to the .80 32 <br />subdivided acreage. 33 <br /> 34 <br /> Ayes – 2(Marty/Stigney) Nays – 3 Amendment failed. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Mayor Marty said that there are views on both sides of this issue. However, the decision before 37 <br />this Council is a major subdivision that meets the City’s requirements. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated that he agreed, but said it does not sway his mind on the park 40 <br />dedication fee so he cannot support this. 41 <br /> 42 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 1(Stigney) Motion carried. 43 <br /> 44