My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/10
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:29 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 12:35:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/10/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/10/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
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 September 26, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br />language and found no issues with the subdivision. The Public Works Department suggested the 1 <br />lot line of Tract C and D be lined up with the property to the south but the survey monuments 2 <br />have already been set and the mylars for the registered land survey produced so Staff 3 <br />recommends the City accept it as submitted. He advised that Mr. Olson has consented to 4 <br />easements and park dedication is not applicable since no new lots are being created. Director 5 <br />Ericson explained that a public hearing was not required but Staff did notify adjacent property 6 <br />owners and no comments were received. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend 7 <br />approval and Mr. Olson is in the audience to answer questions, if any. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mayor Marty asked about the restriction recommended for Tract D and how enforceable it would 10 <br />be since it would qualify as an independent lot. Director Ericson stated that is correct and is why 11 <br />it is important to include that restriction since it does not front on a full right-of-way. He stated 12 <br />his understanding that deed restrictions are difficult to get rid of and at some point, if Knollwood 13 <br />Drive is improved and goes through, then the property owner at that time can request the City to 14 <br />remove that deed restriction. Until that time, the restriction assures that the property cannot be 15 <br />built upon except for typical accessory uses. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mr. Olson stated he has nothing to add and asked the Council to approve the request. 18 <br /> 19 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Stigney. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6636, a 20 <br />Resolution Approving a Minor Subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road. 21 <br /> 22 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 23 <br /> 24 <br />E. Resolution 6601 Awarding a Construction Contract for the Emergency 25 <br />Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project 26 <br /> 27 <br />Public Works Director Lee stated the City received and opened six bids on September 20, 2005 28 <br />for the construction contract for the Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) Installation Project. 29 <br />The low bid was from Eagan Companies, Inc. at $59,500. The engineer’s estimate was $60,000. 30 <br />He reviewed that Staff did receive quotes about a month ago but they were rejected since the 31 <br />dollar amount was in excess of $50,000 and the City Attorney recommended competitive bids be 32 <br />received. Public Works Director Lee recommended the Council adopt the resolution awarding a 33 <br />construction contract to Eagan Companies, Inc. and entering into a maintenance contract with 34 <br />Ramey County for the EVP systems. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Councilmember Flaherty commented on the language of the County’s contract that indicates all 37 <br />the costs are to the City of Mounds View and that the City is always liable. He noted he found 38 <br />no dollar figure reflected. Public Works Director Lee explained that the devices would be 39 <br />owned, operated, and maintained by the City which is why the Ramsey County contract reflects 40 <br />that the City is responsible for the cost and liability. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Councilmember Flaherty asked if the Ramsey County vehicles would be tied into this system. 43 <br />Public Works Director Lee answered in the affirmative. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.