My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-28-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
07-28-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 9:15:55 AM
Creation date
8/6/2018 2:49:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
7/28/2003
Commission Doc Number (Ord & Res)
0
Supplemental fields
Date
7/28/2003
EDA Document Type
Council Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 EDA July 14, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br /> 46 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn. To Accept the Soil Test Borings Report for the County Road 47 <br />H2 Property as Presented. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 50 <br /> 51 <br />B. County Road H2 Residential Project Pre-Development Agreement between 52 <br />Pro Craft Homes and the City of Mounds View 53 <br /> 54 <br />Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that on June 9, 2003 the EDA selected 55 <br />Pro Craft Homes to be the developer for this project and since then the developer has been 56 <br />communicating with homeowners on the block. He then said that, given the potential 57 <br />investments, Staff felt that a predevelopment agreement would be appropriate. The purpose of 58 <br />which is to delineate the responsibilities and obligations and serve as a starting point for 59 <br />negotiations. He then reviewed the areas covered by the agreement and indicated that Staff was 60 <br />seeking direction from Council as to whether the developer should be allowed to install the 61 <br />infrastructure improvements or whether the City should do so. 62 <br /> 63 <br />President Linke asked Public Works Director Lee for his opinion on the matter. 64 <br /> 65 <br />The Developer indicated they would prefer to put in the infrastructure from the standpoint of 66 <br />coordinating timing of the development and said it makes economic sense for all parties to have 67 <br />one contractor to coordinate. 68 <br /> 69 <br />Commissioner Marty arrived at 6:43 p.m. 70 <br /> 71 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated it would be his recommendation that any infrastructure that 72 <br />is publicly owned be installed by the City. 73 <br /> 74 <br />President Linke asked whether the City could work with the projected timeframe of this 75 <br />development. 76 <br /> 77 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated that the timing would work out perfectly with the street 78 <br />project that is scheduled for that area. He then said that Staff anticipates that the developer 79 <br />would have the site graded and ready by June 1, 2004 and then the City’s contractor would install 80 <br />the infrastructure. 81 <br /> 82 <br />Economic Development Coordinator Backman indicated that, in terms of environmental cost, 83 <br />Staff does not anticipate any remediation nor does Staff expect any need for eminent domain or 84 <br />relocation of tenants to be occurring. He then said that the City would need to determine who 85 <br />would install the infrastructure. 86 <br /> 87
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.