Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August S, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br />. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that he meant to mention when he was dealing <br />with the contractual issues that he had read in the minutes of the Council meeting where the Fire <br />Department had come in to request approval for their project to replace Stations 3 and 5 on <br />Highway 65 and the land costs for the first estimate was at $115,000.00 per acre. He noted that <br />one of the Council Member's had moved to make that the cap in the motion and Staff quickly <br />informed that Council Member that the land in that area along Highway 65, although as <br />congested as it is during the day, goes for $150,000.00 to $170,000.00 per acre and they thought <br />that if they could make the $115,000.00 work, which is an unusual situation, but perhaps if they <br />couldn't, then the amendment to cap it at $115,000.00 would put the City in a difficult situation. <br />He commented that considering that the golf course property is prime location and much more <br />desirable than anything else that could be produced on Highway 65, he asked why the City is <br />taking $120,000.00 for the golf course property when the prices for less desirable properties are <br />going for $150,000 to $170,000. <br />Council Member Stigney stated they are not discussing what is up in Blaine they are talking <br />about the appraised land value for The Bridges Golf Course. <br />City Administrator Ulrich confirmed stating that this was a negotiated land sale based on the <br />value of the appraisal and reflects the value of the land for this location. He added that there is <br />quite a difference between large parcels per acre value and a small retail or commercial parcel. <br />He referenced the Walgreen's parcel, which is a smaller 1-2 acre parcel, noting that it would be <br />worth more per square foot than a 40-acre tract of land that would be used for an office building. <br />• He explained that generally the parcels would be priced differently in the marketplace on a per <br />acre or square footage basis. <br />Mr. McGarry noted that along that line a previous speaker had pointed out eminent domain and <br />asked if three appraisals were done on this. <br />Mayor Marty clarified that the City only did one appraisal He stated that he had some questions <br />regarding the development that Mr. Morgan was discussing. He stated that the developer had <br />done some soil borings noting that the City had received a copy of the plat showing that the <br />location of the borings was in the middle of the driveway area and that it was indicated at the last <br />Council work session that they received Rice Creek Watershed approval, which means that the <br />developer could begin the permit application process. He asked if the developer has started the <br />permit application process adding that because much of the development east of Greenwood is <br />located within a wetland or wetland buffer zone shouldn't the developer provide soil borings <br />from the actual area where the pads would be placed. He asked if they should have soil borings <br />from the specific area before a developer can build in that specific area. <br />Director Ericson confirmed stating that before any building permits could be issued for this <br />project on an area such as this the City would be requiring an engineered soil analysis for each <br />building. He stated that soil borings would have to be conducted noting that the Rice Creek <br />Watershed approval was conditional and it is his understanding that there are a number of issues <br />• that Mr. Hartstad has to resubmit back to Rice Creek Watershed District. He stated that he is not <br />sure if this has happened yet noting that he could find out when they plan to have this <br />