My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
gr00090_000056_pg175
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
MNHistoricalSocietyFiles (CC Minutes page-by-page 1958-1981)
>
gr00090_000056
>
gr00090_000056_pg175
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2011 8:35:12 PM
Creation date
4/12/2011 11:39:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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 June 8, 1981 <br />Regular Meeting _ Page 11 <br />zussed at length, with Bob Glazer and Marleen Walton, <br />2741 Hillview, and Dave Koffe, 2757 Hillview stating <br />they did not feel the traffic studies showed a true <br />picture and that they felt there would be a traffic <br />problem coming from the bank. <br />Mr. Glazer stated he did not feel a public hearing <br />had been held when the proposal was first brought <br />before the City. There was considerable discussion <br />on the issue, with Official Rose clarifying that <br />the Planning Commission held an informational hearing. <br />Attorney Meyers added that a public hearing was <br />required for a rezoning, but not for a development <br />proposal. Councilmember Forslund added that the <br />Planning Commission considered the proposal as a <br />final site plan, and that they felt the B -3 to B -2 <br />rezoning would protect the area if the Bank ever <br />moved, but that the proposal was allowable in a B -3 <br />zone. <br />Mayor McCarty pointed out that a public hearing <br />would be held in the future, when the applicant <br />subdivides the property for the future development. <br />Steve Winnick, attorney for Sahara Investment, <br />reviewed the proposal and pointed out that the <br />developer has tried to cooperate in every way. He <br />added that the Planning Commission had stated it <br />was up to the Council to determine when a public <br />hearing would be held. <br />Mayor McCarty stated he was concerned with represent- <br />ing the people and their best interests but he felt <br />they would be served when a public hearing is held <br />on the future development. <br />Motion /Second: McCarty /Blanchard to direct Staff to <br />take the proper steps to issue a building permit and <br />Development Agreement, including but not limited to, <br />the Planning Commission's recommendations, excluding <br />the requirement of a public hearing. <br />A rollcall vote was taken: <br />Councilmember <br />Councilmember <br />Councilmember <br />Councilmember <br />Mayor McCarty <br />ayes <br />Forslund - aye <br />Blanchard - aye <br />Doty - nay <br />Hodges - aye <br />- aye <br />1 nay <br />Councilmember Doty explained that he had voted <br />against the motion as he had not been on the <br />Council when they had given the original approval <br />Motion Carried <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.