Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 13, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br />Council Member Quick said there is no way to kill all the pests because it is an ongoing battle to <br />stay ahead of them. <br />Mr. Longville indicated it is not possible to get rid of all the pests in a specific species and noted <br />it is a common practice to treat once a month as a preventative control. <br />Council Member Stigney asked what the charge for the speaker on Page 9 was for. <br />Finance Director Hansen indicated he would need to pull the invoice to obtain further <br />information. <br />Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Stigney. To Approve Consent Agenda Item E as Presented. <br />Council Member Marty commended Staff for finding a replacement and a larger model bobcat <br />for less than the budgeted amount. <br />Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Approve Consent Agenda Item G as Presented. <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained to Council that the applicant has expressed <br />the desire to seek a waiver of the park dedication fee associated with this matter that is defined by <br />Code as a subdivision even though it joins two lots. <br />Steve Anderson of 1713 Maple Lane, Roseville addressed Council and explained his company, in <br />the process of seeking financing for the business, learned that the use is a nonconforming use and <br />his lender has asked that the property be brought into conformity. He then indicated the company <br />has since learned that, as a part of that process, a park dedication fee of $14,000 would be due <br />and they are seeking a waiver of that fee because approval of the request carries with it a <br />limitation on future development. <br />Mayor Sonterre asked Director Ericson to explain the limitation of development. <br />Director Ericson explained that the Planning Commission had recommended approval with the <br />condition that there would be no expansion of the facility. He also explained that the Planning <br />Commission has recommended leaving the zoning of the second parcel as R-1 and requiring <br />some type of easement to ensure that nothing is able to be constructed in the future. He then <br />explained the applicant has not indicated approval of the conditions and said Staff has discussed <br />a second scenario whereby one lot would become 125,000 square feet and the second lot would <br />be left as an unbuildable outlot. <br />Council Member Quick said he feels the City needs to require a fee. <br />