Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council February 10, 2020 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />have to be removed if the City needs to put a street through. She explained the City Council would <br />have no personal or private gain over this project. She understood that change was hard but <br />commented there was a need for more single-family homes in Mounds View, which could only <br />happen through in-fill developments. She stated the Council was not disregarding the view of 19 <br />people in this neighborhood but was respecting the rights of the seven property owners that have <br />come together to create the proposed development. She reiterated the fact that this project was not <br />initiated by the City. <br /> <br />City Administrator Zikmund explained the developer would be responsible to hire a private <br />engineer to complete an assessment on the property. He stated going forward as part of the <br />feasibility, Mr. Harstad will be responsible for completing a permit with the Rice Creek Watershed <br />District. He reported the City does not have anything to do with this process, but rather Mr. <br />Harstad will have to comply with all of the requirements of the watershed district. He indicated <br />the City would have a stormwater pond management maintenance agreement with Rice Creek. He <br />commented it can be as frustrating for the City to deal with stormwater management issues as it is <br />for residents given the fact determinations on this were made by the developer and the watershed <br />district. <br /> <br />Council Member Bergeron stated in Article 2.06 under Additional Requirements it states the <br />developer shall satisfy, complete and abide by all requirements set forth in any City approvals, <br />including adequately addressing all items that may be directed by the City Attorney, City Engineer, <br />or other review. He indicated this was a safeguard and until he saw specifics he could not support <br />this document. He reported in Article 3.10 under the Indemnification language, he did not want <br />the City to be held hostage by poor the workmanship of the developer. He stated this has happened <br />in the past. He commented he wanted to see more definitive measures taken regarding the water <br />situation otherwise he would not be able to support the Development Agreement. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Meehlhause. To Waive the Reading and Adopt Resolution 9237, <br />Approving Development Agreement for Long Lake Woods Second Addition. <br /> <br />Council Member Gunn indicated this was a preliminary document and was not a final plat <br />agreement. City Administrator Zikmund reported the Development Agreement was a standard <br />agreement that would allow the developer to proceed with a feasibility study. He commented the <br />Council could delay action on this item by two weeks to allow for additional comment from the <br />City Attorney. However, he noted the provisions within this agreement were standard. <br />Council Member Meehlhause stated he understood that for some of the property owners in this <br />neighborhood this project was tough. He commented on how property owners have the right to <br />sell and develop their property. He explained the Comprehensive Plan has shown for years that <br />this area of the City will be developed into single-family homes. He understood the neighbors <br />were not happy with this, but explained the City also had to consider the rights of the property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Council Member Bergeron indicated there was a big difference between commercial and <br />residential developments. He noted this was a residential development that had little or no <br />separation for the neighbors.