My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2001/08/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Minutes - 2001/08/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2025 2:22:08 PM
Creation date
2/27/2025 2:22:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
8/27/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 August 27, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br />Council Member Marty asked for a copy of the Ordinance. He stated his copy did not have this <br />Resolution in it. He inquired about the dog run on the site plan, and asked if it was large enough. <br />He indicated it looked pretty small and asked about the cost of the corridor improvements in <br />relation to the other construction. He stated he believed it was excessive for the small area and <br />concurred with staff's recommendation to forego the decorative lights at this time. <br />Council Member Stigney asked for clarification regarding decorative lighting. Planning <br />Associate Atkinson replied the applicant would not provide decorative lighting at this time. <br />Community Development Director Ericson replied they had to come up with a process for <br />installing the decorative features along the corridor and explained how that would be assessed <br />onto the property owner, or how the City would pay for it. At this point, staff was suggesting <br />that Council waive the requirement to put in decorative lights at this time until further <br />discussions were had regarding the Highway 10 project. <br />Council Member Stigney asked if anything was going to be done about a trail on the north side of <br />Highway 10. Community Development Director Ericson replied that was still under <br />development, but they did foresee a trail at some point. It was a question of where it was going <br />to go. <br />Council Member Stigney stated the City needed a policy regarding this issue. Community <br />Development Director Ericson replied a policy was needed once the Highway 10 project was <br />• discussed. <br />Council Member Stigney suggested some money be escrowed for the decorative lighting. <br />Council Member Marty agreed. <br />Planning Associate Atkinson stated the money would be escrowed for five years, but staff was <br />recommending due to the size of this project, it not be required. <br />Council Member Quick asked what percentage of the project would be trail. Planning Associate <br />Atkinson replied 1.6%; 3.2% with the lights. Two lights would be 2.3%. The Minnesota Health <br />building paid .92%. <br />Mayor Sonterre recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. <br />Mayor Sonterre reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m. <br />Council Member Quick asked Resolution number 4 would be re-worded. Planning Associate <br />Atkinson replied they would like to put together a one percent policy for future projects, but did <br />not believe they could do it for this project. He recommended the Council deal with this on an <br />individual basis. <br />Council Member Marty expressed concern that the Mermaid project was just under $6 million <br />and they make this a maximum of one percent, so this project and the MN Health project were <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.