Laserfiche WebLink
Page 10 <br />September 14, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Koopmeiners to amend the Development Agreement: In the <br />form of Paragraph 3.12, Traffic Control, stating: The Developer will be responsible for any <br />additional traffic control costs associated with the Theater Project. <br />Wendell Smith, representing Anthony Properties, voiced his strong objection to adding new <br />conditions to an agreement that had already been signed and executed by one of the parties to the <br />agreement. He stated at this point in the project, "the last hour", it was very unfair for the <br />Council to put additional constraints on the project. <br />Stigney stated the Developer has indicated there will be no traffic problems relating to the <br />Theaters opening. In light of this statement, they should have no objection to making an <br />agreement that they would be responsible for the costs of any traffic problems that might occur. <br />Gunn suggested putting a time limitation on the amendment, "conditioned on the installation of <br />the traffic control. If the traffic light does not go in on time, and they (The Theater) have to use <br />. H2, then the developer pays for the extra traffic control, should it be needed. <br />Stigney stated his continuing concerns about traffic problems that would be created by the <br />Theater even when the signalized intersection is completed. <br />Mayor McCarty expressed concerns about requiring a private developer to furnish traffic control <br />personnel on a state highway and a county road. <br />Attorney Long stated the City could have its police department do the work and then bill the <br />Theater for this cost. <br />Mr. Smith reminded the Council that Anthony Properties had already committed to "work with <br />the City" in dealing with any traffic problems that might arise from opening the Theater early. <br />He added the City still has the leverage of not issuing an occupancy permit if a "working <br />agreement" cannot be reached to deal with traffic problems relating to the signalized intersection. <br />Mayor McCarty stated the signalized interaction is a "two-way gain." Not only will the Theater <br />Project benefit from the intersection, but the City's New Community Center also stands to benefit <br />greatly. He suggested that the maker of the motion for the amendment and the seconder agree to <br />limit the requirement to the installation of the signalized intersection. <br />Stigney stated the costs for the intersection are not being shared equally by the developer, as they <br />should be. He added the signalized intersection does not guarantee that traffic problems will not <br />occur as a result of the Theater being open for business. The Developer should be responsible <br />