Agenda Packets - 2005/09/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council August 8, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 10 1 Mr. Jahnke stated that if the residents would sit down and really look at the funds the City has 2 received from all of this they would understand that no other developer would have been able to 3 help this City with projects like the County Road J improvement project. He stated that the City 4 was able to do this project because of Medtronic and they never say anything about that. He 5 stated that the City got plenty for this land for what Medtronic got for the City. 6 7 Mayor Marty asked if the Council feels that the development should be brought back for 8 discussion at a work session. 9 10 Council Member Thomas stated that she does not think it is necessary. 11 12 Council Member Flaherty stated that Council should discuss this further. He stated that he would 13 like to review the plan further before they start developing the land. 14 15 Council Member Gunn asked if they have new information that should be reviewed. 16 17 Director Ericson stated that there is no new information at this point noting that Staff would 18 provide Council with updates if they do receive any changes. He stated that this is not a project 19 that would be heard by the Planning Commission or the City Council noting that it would not be 20 rezoned or go into a PUD. He agreed that Mr. Morgan brings up a point that the City could 21 consider condemning the property but it would involve spending millions of dollars to acquire 22 the land. 23 24 City Administrator Ulrich clarified that Mr. Morgan is asking the City to purchase the existing 25 units or purchase the land for the 66 units or both. He stated that his answer would dictate 26 whether it should be discussed at a work session. 27 28 Mr. Morgan stated that he does want due diligence from the City relative to the building permits. 29 He stated that he wants it to follow normal protocol. He stated that the court order did not say 30 that it could not be a PUD, that it shouldn’t go through the Planning Commission or that it 31 should not be reviewed by City Council. He stated that this is the responsibility of the City to 32 follow the normal protocol and do the right thing to protect the problems the City has 33 experienced in the past. He stated that it has been 30-years noting that he thinks they, as owners, 34 take an extreme risk. He stated that it is his understanding that the court order states that the 35 developer has to build 66 units. He stated that just because the developer doesn’t want to, he 36 doesn’t get that vote. He stated that they sit on peat moss and there are structural problems. He 37 explained that this has nothing to do with the Watershed adding that the Watershed has told them 38 that this is a City issue. He stated that the warranty comes from the builder. He expressed 39 concerns stating that the homeowners bear the costs and the condemnation would give him a fair 40 market price for his property and it would get him out of the responsibility of bearing those 41 dollars. 42 43 City Administrator Ulrich stated that Staff could take a look at condemning the existing six units 44 on the property noting that generally the City relies on a slum and blight finding, which he 45