My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2007/01/08
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
Agenda Packets - 2007/01/08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:45:50 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 1:43:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
1/8/2007
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
1/8/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
150
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 December 11, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Council Member Stigney abstained from voting, as he has not received the requested 3 <br />information. 4 <br /> 5 <br /> D. Resolution 6983, Denying Plan Submitted by T-Mobile for a 6 <br />Communications Pole 7 <br /> 8 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated that the proposal was presented to Council for consideration 9 <br />on November 27, 2006 and then reviewed a Resolution of denial for the project. 10 <br /> 11 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Stigney. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6983, 12 <br />Denying Plan Submitted by T-Mobile for a Communications Pole With Option 2B as Amended. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Council Member Gunn indicated that this is a park and a park is a place where kids go to play. 15 <br />She then said that this is not the place for this. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Council Member Flaherty indicated that 2B says that if Park and Recreation still wants to 18 <br />negotiate it they can still do that through a formal submittal. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated that Staff has spoken to the City Attorney 21 <br />and, if 2B is the desired action, Council should strike “without a formal special use application”. 22 <br />He then explained that because the City is the landowner, there should be a lease or a negotiation 23 <br />before that is brought to the Planning Commission. He further said that 2B cannot be approved 24 <br />because the City needs to sign off on any application as the property owner. 25 <br /> 26 <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that if there is no lease then this cannot move forward and, if 27 <br />Council is not supporting that, there is no need to move forward. 28 <br /> 29 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Marty. To Amend 2B to Remove the Language Regarding the 30 <br />Special Use Permit. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Director Lee indicated that T-Mobile is expressing a willingness to work with the City and Parks 33 <br />and Recreation. 34 <br /> 35 <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Thomas clarified that she is not sure that she is in favor of this use of a City 38 <br />park as the plan was presented to Council. She then said that she feels like she is slamming the 39 <br />door before things have been further discussed to address the issues. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Council Member Stigney said that this is denying the proposed plan. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Mayor Marty said that he does not want to sell the City’s parks regardless of how they plan to 44 <br />dress it up. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.