My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/12
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/09/12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:00 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 8:38:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
9/12/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/12/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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 8, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />or completely true. He stated that the facts have not been communicated clearly adding that 1 <br />distribution of the pamphlet was a good move because it provided the community with the true 2 <br />facts about the project. He stated that he is having a hard time figuring this whole thing out 3 <br />adding that he would never sign his name to a document unless it tells the entire truth. He stated 4 <br />that the golf course has never made money for the City adding that he is very proud of the 5 <br />individuals who put out this pamphlet because now the people have the true facts about this 6 <br />project. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Ron Morgan, 2656 West County Road H2 stated that he would like to quote a sentence from the 9 <br />court order to the City noting that it states that the construction of the 66 townhouse units must 10 <br />comply with all of the applicable provisions of the current building and fire codes noting that this 11 <br />becomes the mandate of the City. He stated that as they move forward they should do their job 12 <br />and do it well noting that as he looks into the past with this development it was not done well. 13 <br />He acknowledged that there were a lot of different reasons and there were a lot of different 14 <br />players involved in the process and they as an association had to obtain legal help and spent 15 <br />thousands of dollars just to get legal title to their property. He stated that they had to threaten to 16 <br />sue noting that it was resolved before it went to court. He stated that everyone has been involved 17 <br />and asked who the bigger losers would be. He noted that the City would gain in taxes and the 18 <br />developer would gain but the owners within the association are taking an extreme risk with no 19 <br />gain. He asked the Council and Staff for due diligence as they look to issue permits that the 20 <br />permits be done through the normal protocol, that there be a planning committee in place for 21 <br />people to go to, and that it be on a PUD basis so that regulations can be outlined and included. 22 <br />He stated that people have sat and waited for thirty years for a promised swimming pool adding 23 <br />that if the City doesn’t document this and include performance as part of the security bond it 24 <br />might not get done. He stated that it is easy to cherry pick and it would be easy for the developer 25 <br />to pull out and what could the City do. He stated that he did attend the Watershed meeting and 26 <br />expressed concerns that he did not see any representation from Council or City Staff. He 27 <br />suggested that someone from Staff review the meeting. He stated that he was appalled at the 28 <br />developer when the developer complained that the City of Mounds View would not allow them 29 <br />to dump clean fill on their land. He expressed concerns stating that they were not sure that it was 30 <br />actually clean fill in addition to the fact that this is not the developers land. He explained that 31 <br />this common area is association land called common land and is deeded to the association. He 32 <br />stated that there are six homeowners that homesteaded this and one person who owns some 33 <br />vacant property are going to profit financially. He stated that for them to not see due diligence 34 <br />through for the people living here would be wrong and it is his hope that the City would follow 35 <br />the rules. He stated that if this goes through the City should condemn the property noting that the 36 <br />City has great powers and questioned how the City ever lost the lawsuit. He stated that it was 37 <br />good that the City pulled it noting that it was a conditional special use permit and pulling it was 38 <br />the right thing to do. He stated that the thing he believes the City should do is condemn the 39 <br />property, take it, pay the residents for it, and do whatever they want with the property. He stated 40 <br />that they have had several years of hardship and wrong doings here and would rather see the land 41 <br />condemned and give it back to the developer. He stated that he believes this would be the 42 <br />prudent way to handle this situation. 43 <br /> 44
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.