Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 <br />May 11, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />turn-in/right-turn-out access down close to Donatelles. These changes are the requirements of MnDOT <br />and are recommended by Mayor McCarty to the City Council for approval. <br />Mayor McCarty took this opportunity to address numerous concerns which had been addressed by <br />residents for council's consideration during the public hearing process on this project. <br />Mr. Whiting noted that during the afternoon, he received a petition containing approximately 900 <br />signatures requesting a referendum initiative in regard to this proposed development. <br />Mayor McCarty explained that this meeting was not a Public Hearing on the project. At the last regular <br />Council meeting, it was recommended that action be delayed on the Resolutions approving the project with <br />the proposed property access configurations. The resolutions were approved by the Council, however, <br />and the Public Hearings were not continued. The project has essentially be approved with transportation <br />configurations that MnDOT has since denied. <br />Council member Stigney stated he, as well as many of the residents, were under the understanding that this <br />was to be a continuation of the Public Hearing. <br />Mayor McCarty noted that this does not prevent any resident from providing input. <br />Mr. Whiting explained that due to time requirements, the Public Hearing could not be continued. In regard <br />to the impacts of the petition, he asked Mr. Long to provide information. <br />Mr. Long explained that under the City Charter, Chapter 5, Section 5.03, there is a process that the City <br />Clerk must go through to determine the sufficiency of the petition. This must be completed within 10 <br />days with a written response. Additionally, the attorney must determine whether or not the form of the <br />questions is sufficient to put into an initiative form under state law. <br />Mr. Whiting explained that he will take necessary administrative action and that he will be able to respond <br />on this issue at the next regular council meeting. A formal response, however, will be required within a 10 <br />day period, which will occur prior to the May 26th Council meeting. <br />Mr. Long, City Attorney, explained that if it is the wish of the Council members to accept the <br />transportation configurations as approved by MnDOT, the Council would need to consider a motion to <br />reconsider Resolution 5226, which was adopted at the last council meeting. If it prevails, the council could <br />then amend the resolution to reflect the recommended changes. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Koopmeiners to reconsider the action on Resolution No. 5226. <br />Council member Stigney stated he would like to hear what the residents have to say in regard to this matter. <br />Mayor McCarty explained that the Council would allow comments while the issue is being discussed. <br />VOTE: 4 ayes 1 nay (Stigney) Motion Carried <br />Mr. Long explained that the council could consider Resolution No. 5226, could be adopted as it is written <br />with one amendment as follows: <br />