Laserfiche WebLink
MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL <br />Page 3 <br />Regular Meeting <br />November 13, 1979 <br />Sharon McCarthy, 7760 Long Lake Rd., asked <br />what would happen with the holding ponds <br />should Hwy. 10 be upgraded? Wood replied <br />that in such a case, the proposed site would <br />be required for an interchange. She was <br />also concerned with the amount of parking <br />spaces - -would like to see more buffer. <br />Don Neis, 8340 Red Oak Drive, was concerned <br />about the possibility of the rental space <br />going unoccupied, as other buildings in the <br />area are. He was also concerned about the <br />traffic increase caused by customers of the <br />other tenants. Winnick assured that the <br />tenants would be of a high quality, i.e., <br />lawyers, realtors, accountants, etc., and <br />traffic should be minimal. <br />Councilmembers agreed the proposed development <br />would be an asset to the community, but that <br />the major issue is traffic control. <br />Resolution #1046 was read to those present. <br />Ziebarth moved, seconded by Hodges, to adopt <br />Resolution #1046 giving conceptual approval <br />of site plan approval for an office building <br />with a detached banking facility proposed by <br />Sahara Investment Co. <br />5 ayes <br />0 nays <br />Mayor McCarty closed the public hearing and <br />reopened the regular meeting. <br />7c. SAHARA INVESTMENT CO. <br />PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd) <br />Neil Loeding, 5046 Longview Drive, presented 5. RESIDENTS REQUESTS & <br />a petition from 36 concerned citizens (see COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR <br />attached), plus a check in the amount of <br />$1,000 addressed to Dr. Machmeier. These <br />citizens feel this is a way of repairing <br />damage they feel was done to Machmeier's <br />reputation by raising the money to pay for the bill. <br />McCarty moved, seconded by Forslund, that the <br />City honor this commitment and, with City <br />funds, pay Machmeier the $1,000. <br />2 ayes <br />3 nays <br />(Nay votes: Rowley, Ziebarth, Hodges. <br />Reasons: Rowley felt the City's obligation <br />was fulfilled with the $200 payment which was <br />authorized by Council. Therefore, the City <br />has no further obligation since Machmeier <br />failed to state what his intentions were. <br />Ziebarth felt the City should hold off <br />paying Machmeier until the matter is discussed <br />with him and the issue is resolved.) <br />