Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 11, 1988 <br />Regular Meeting Page Two <br />''ouncilmember Hankner explained Staff is gathering <br />information regarding what other Cities have done and <br />the authority they have given to their boards. She <br />stated she has not had time to draft anything for <br />Mounds View yet, but hopes to work on it by next week, <br />and she would like help from the residents to put this <br />together. She also added that the board would have to <br />be created by ordinance, which will take some time, but <br />she would hope to have it in place by the end of May. <br />Councilmember Hankner requested certain items be moved <br />up on the agenda, as she had to leave the meeting by <br />8:30 PM to return to work. <br />Councilmember Hankner reported there were differences <br />in opinion of the residents on where they would like <br />a streetlight placed, and she would like further time <br />to work on this to come to an agreement that would <br />satisfy everyone. <br />Motion /Second: Hankner /Quick to table this item. <br />5 ayes 0 nays <br />f <ttorney Meyers updated the Council on the Amoco Oil <br />lawsuit, explaining that the Court has issued an order <br />and has ruled in favor of the request of Amoco for a <br />conditional use permit for construction of a filling <br />station on Highway 10 at Silver Lake Road. He stated <br />the Planning Commission had recommended approval of <br />the conditional use permit, but the Council had <br />reviewed it and denied it. <br />Attorney Meyers advised that the Court has ordered <br />the City to issue a conditional use permit pursuant <br />to the ordinance, and therefore a resolution has <br />been prepared for approval, which would include the <br />development agreement, which will accompany the <br />conditional use permit. He further explained that one <br />of the considerations Amoco has agreed to is to <br />dismiss the civil rights action against the City, which <br />could possibly have been very costly to the City. <br />Attorney Meyers stated he had reviewed the case to see <br />whether an appeal would be adviseable, and he could not <br />recommend it in this instance, and it would be very <br />difficult, if not impossible, to overturn the Court's <br />finding, as it was a legal decision based on the law. <br />He pointed out the zoning was proper, and the issue was <br />',ranting the conditional use permit. <br />6. Consideration <br />of Petition <br />for Street- <br />lights on Wood <br />lawn Drive <br />Motion Carried <br />