Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 9, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 17 <br />• make the pieces of the puzzle fit adding that they want to explore the storm water options to <br />determine what is available and economically feasible. He stated that the emphasis is on them to <br />the control the water, not the City. <br />Director Ericson stated that currently there are two approaches City Council could take. He <br />stated that Council could move to table the action pending more research on the position of the <br />Rice Creek Watershed, or, Council could approve the resolution as amended and add a final <br />clause that states that the approval would be null and void if the development agreement is not <br />executed within six months of the date of approval. He stated that this would give the developers <br />an opportunity to move forward and begin work. He stated that if they cannot come to an <br />agreement on the stormwater management issue and noting is executed, this agreement would be <br />null and void. <br />Council Member Thomas agreed that the Council could approve the resolution tonight and work <br />out the particulars at a later time. <br />Mayor Many referenced Item 2 and suggested that the applicant prepare and receive approval of <br />the onsite plan that incorporates an onsite water management system. <br />Mr. Williams asked if it would be appropriate to include a reference `as approved by the Rice <br />Creek Watershed.' <br />Council Member Thomas stated that Item 2 could be edited and approved contingent on <br />complying with Rice Creek Watershed standards. She stated that she is not in support of a <br />stormwater pond on city property. She suggested approving the resolution now and move <br />forward to complete the rest of the work that needs to be done. She stated that Council could <br />move forward with the approval and have staff and the applicant continue to work on the <br />stormwater conversion issue separately. <br />Judy Cummens, 7729 Knollwood Drive, expressed concerns stating that if the gas station went <br />under the City would be sitting with a property that looks worse than this. She asked how many <br />people are interested in purchasing this land and doing all of the work needed to remove the <br />tanks. She suggested working with them to come together on the best deal for all concerned. <br />Council Member Stigney stated that the first page indicates that the Council has reviewed the <br />documentation adding that this is not a true statement and should be removed. He stated that he <br />also has questions on the trees and lot lines noting that this should not be approved until all <br />questions have been answered satisfactorily. He expressed concerns stating that the applicant <br />should not be allowed to plant trees on City owned property adding that he still has concerns <br />about the ponding issue. <br />Director Ericson clarified that Council has reviewed the stormwater options and agreed that the <br />statement could be removed. He referenced the zero-foot setback stating that if Council supports <br />• maintaining afive-foot setback that it is their prerogative to deny. He stated that they could <br />include a stipulation that all landscaping would be provided on the subject land, not City Hall <br />