My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:28 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 4:53:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/13/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/13/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
381
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 October 10, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br />be handled under the agreement permit, but they needed to look at this closer so they did not 1 <br />intentionally drain the pond. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated this issue was addressed under the stormwater and wetlands 4 <br />management portion of staff’s report. Mayor Marty stated this did not address a swale or berm. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Mayor Marty stated he had a concern under transportation issues that the AUAR did not deal 7 <br />with City streets and traffic issues. He noted with this development, there was a possibility of 8 <br />more of a draw of additional businesses and indicated light rail might have the possibility of 9 <br />coming into the area. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mayor Marty stated with respect to park dedication fees, he asked if they needed to do a 12 <br />feasibility study for the trail and asked if the study would come out of the $160,000 park 13 <br />dedication fees. Director Ericson responded the fee could come out of this dedication. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Mayor Marty stated under Resolution 6620, Therefore item 2, he asked if they intended storage 16 <br />structures. Representatives from Medtronic nodded. 17 <br /> 18 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Gunn. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6630, a 19 <br />Resolution Approving the Medtronic Development Stage PUD Plans as amended. 20 <br /> 21 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 22 <br /> 23 <br />2. Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution 6631, a Resolution 24 <br />Approving the Medtronic CRM Preliminary Plat 25 <br /> 26 <br />Director Ericson stated he had already touched on this in the preliminary plat. He noted the 27 <br />following conditions: 28 <br />1. The easement over the Met Council sanitary sewer interceport shall not be 29 <br />vacated. 30 <br />2. All of Outlot A shall be protected by public drainage and utility easement, which 31 <br />has been accomplished. 32 <br />3. The periphery easement on Lot 3 shall be widened from 10 feet to 40 feet, which 33 <br />has also been accomplished. 34 <br />4. City Council approval is subject to Ramsey County approval. 35 <br />5. If deemed necessary by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall execute a 36 <br />subdivision agreement consistent with the requirements and regulations of the 37 <br />City of Mounds View and State of Minnesota. 38 <br />6. The applicant shall submit the Medtronic CRM final plat within months from the 39 <br />date of preliminary plat approval or the preliminary plat approval shall be 40 <br />rendered null and void. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Councilmember Thomas asked if condition number 6 was to deal with certain other issues having 43 <br />to deal with development. Director Ericson responded this was standard language they put in all 44 <br />preliminary plat approvals. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.