My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/01/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/01/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:02 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 4:48:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/23/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/23/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
152
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 January 9, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br />Council approve the minor subdivision, table the request for additional information, or direct 1 <br />staff to draft a resolution to deny the request. She advised that the applicant is in the audience to 2 <br />answer questions. 3 <br /> 4 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Flaherty. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6704 5 <br />Approving a Minor Subdivision of 8140 Long Lake Road. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Mayor Marty stated he likes to view the property but was not able to in this case. He asked if 8 <br />there is an alley or access to the rear of the property. Community Development Director Ericson 9 <br />indicated there are just easements. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mayor Marty stated it is curious that someone may be interested in buying a parcel that is 12 <br />somewhat landlocked. He referenced Section 1b in Planning Commission Resolution No. 821-13 <br />05 indicating: The following language shall be added: “The proposed drainage and utility 14 <br />easement areas as shown herein shall be dedicated to the City of Mounds View by a separate 15 <br />document recorded with Ramsey County.” Mayor Marty noted that Council Resolution 6704 16 <br />does not contain that language and only indicates: “The applicants shall execute drainage and 17 <br />utility easement documents consistent with the easements shown on the Certificate of Survey.” 18 <br />He asked if the draft Council resolution covers the requirements of the Planning Commission’s 19 <br />resolution. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Director Ericson stated the requirement the Planning Commission had in their resolution was 22 <br />enacted and included on the certificate of survey so that condition has been complied with. 23 <br /> 24 <br /> Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 25 <br /> 26 <br />L. Resolution 6694 Authorizing an Agreement with G & H Consultants LLC for 27 <br />Plan Review Assistance Associated with Medtronic Phase I Construction 28 <br /> 29 <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated that this is a report originally provided at the 30 <br />December meeting. At that time, the Council had questions on the consultants that would be 31 <br />assisting Building Official Osmonson on the Medtronic project. He advised that staff looked at 32 <br />insurance coverage issues and talked to the League of Minnesota Cities, Trust Division, and the 33 <br />City Attorney. Because staff was not given consistent answers throughout the process, it was 34 <br />determined to require the consultants to provide their own insurance so the City would not need 35 <br />to address the insurance aspect for the plan review. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Director Ericson reviewed that Councilmember Thomas had asked why the bid from Ms. Gove 38 <br />and Mr. Hagedorn was so much less. He explained the cost is lower because this would be a 39 <br />joint effort between Building Official Osmonson and the two consultants. Director Ericson 40 <br />advised that staff modified the agreement with G & H Consultants LLC and inserted the 41 <br />requirement that they provide their own insurance, which was the main issue with the Council. 42 <br />He explained that it would be a joint review process but Building Official Osmonson would still 43 <br />be signing off on the plans. This applies to Phase 1 of the project, which is also clearly spelled 44 <br />out in the agreement. Director Ericson advised that this does not apply to Phase 2 of the project. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.