Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 9, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br />•1 MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6029, a <br />2 Resolution Rescinding Resolution 6001 and Reauthorizing Purchase of Golf Cars. <br />3 <br />4 MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Linke. To Specify that the Money Would be Loaned from the <br />5 Special Projects Fund. <br />6 <br />7 Ayes - 4 Nays - 0 Motion carved. <br />8 <br />9 Ayes - 4 Nays -= 0 Motion carried. <br />10 <br />11 Council Member Marty asked for clarification as to how the amendment to the motion was <br />12 handled. <br />13 <br />14 Council Member Stigney indicated the procedure was appropriate per Roberts Rules of Order. <br />15 <br />16 H. Consideration of Development Review Requests for Properties Located at <br />17 2436 and 2442 County Highway 10 <br />18 <br />19 Interim City Administrator Ericson indicated this development review request had been heard by <br />20 the Planning Commission and the Commission recommended approval. He then indicated that <br />1 all the dimensional requirements are met with the plan. <br />2 <br />23 Council Member Many asked that the lighting be directed down to minimize the impact to the <br />24 residents. He also asked that the lighting be tied into the lighting in the theatre property to <br />25 coordinate and noted he would like to see the City's Code adhered to with regard to lighting. <br />26 <br />27 Council Member Gunn indicated she was impressed with the landscaping and said it was very <br />28 nice. <br />29 <br />3o MOTION/SECOND: Gunn/Linke. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6033, a <br />31 Resolution Approving the Development Review for Properties Located at 2436 and 2442 County <br />32 Highway 10. <br />33 <br />34 Council Member Stigney indicated that he feels the PUD should stay as it was originally <br />35 approved and he does not support this. <br />36 <br />37 Council Member Marty indicated he agreed and said he felt the PUD should stay the way it was <br />38 originally approved. He further commented that the developer dangled a medical office in front <br />39 of Council and that has fallen by the wayside and he does not support this development. <br />40 <br />41 Council Member Gunn indicated that the developer was not able to finalize the deal with one <br />42 medical provider but that does not mean that they are giving up on trying to find other medical <br />3 tenants to go into the building. <br />~4 <br />