My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2006/01/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Minutes - 2006/01/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2025 1:36:16 PM
Creation date
3/6/2025 1:36:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
1/23/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 15 <br />• Councilmember Thomas stated that she is sure it is something that will be in discussion at the <br />Community Center Task Force, but she just does not think it is something that the City can make <br />the Beltings wait for. <br />Mayor Many asked if there is any way the City can contact Walgreens, Inc. to remind them as to <br />what their original plans were. Director Ericson stated that the problem is when the documents <br />were originally executed and the approvals were granted by the City, the other party involved <br />was Told Development Company and Walgreens did not own the site. He explained Walgreens <br />currently does not own the site either, but it is a different entity than Told Development. Director <br />Ericson explained that the issue is dealing with the second and third parties that weren't privy to <br />the original discussion and the original planning to this site. Director Ericson stated it is difficult <br />to try to force new requirements on a developer or property owner that was not aware of what the <br />City was intending. He stated the discussion will continue with the current property owner and <br />staff will seek additional discussion. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated that while she likes the idea of banking parking credits, she <br />thinks there might be legal issues to look into. She stated she does not know if the City could <br />make a formal vote tonight without looking into that. She suggested this information should be <br />put together and returned for Council consideration. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that Councilmember Thomas is correct, as there could be some issues <br />with payments in lieu of, if there is not enough authority established ahead of time. He explained <br />• that there have been some significant court cases that have come down that even if it is in the <br />agreement, it can be somewhat problematic. He mentioned that when dealing with the developer, <br />they are usually good to their word and staff could put something together that deals with the <br />issue. City Attorney Riggs stated that it should not take that long, and staff could have a <br />response by next week. <br />Dr. Greg Belting stated the closing was delayed because of the REA document with the owner of <br />the Walgreens property and because of Walgreens itself with the easement issues. He stated that <br />the transaction did not close until December 21, 2005. Dr. Greg Belting stated that they would <br />like to start having materials delivered before frost restrictions. <br />Councilmember Stigney stated he was opposed to parceling off part of the Community Center <br />parking lot. He stated that whether the City sells it or rents the parking, a sidewalk will still be <br />placed through there. <br />Councilmember Stigney asked what option the City would have more leverage in if additional <br />parking is required in the future, whether it be asking for a variance or a change in the PUD for <br />43 spaces. Councilmember Stigney suggested that if the building gets new owners, the parking <br />issue would need to be addressed at that time. City Attorney Riggs stated that it would have to <br />be in the PUD document. He explained once the variance is in place, it exists at that time and <br />moves forward, so it would be a PUD amendment that staff has been talking about. <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.