Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 23, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br />• Ms. Haake asked if they could have zoned 41 acres as light industrial versus the entire 72 acres. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that the application was done as a whole area in order to be consistent <br />with MnDOT. <br />Mr. McCarty asked if the exact verbiage used in the first enabling resolution putting the EDA in <br />place is still in the original format. He asked if there are any implementing controls and <br />organization for the EDA that are still intact. He stated that the EDA should be able to show that <br />they have used every avenue open to them to address all concerns at the local level. He stated <br />that he would like to have this information to ensure that every avenue possible has been <br />explored. He requested copies of the resolution and the Planning Commission's <br />recommendation for the ordinance. <br />Council Member Stigney stated that it is his understanding that the verbiage is still in the original <br />format. <br />Mayor Marty assured the Residents that either way, the City wants to do this the right way, <br />whether the development occurs or not. He stated that comments made requesting a moratorium <br />have been received noting the continuation of the EDA public hearing to June 20, 2005. He <br />stated that the City and Council have received a lot of calls from Residents asking to speak on the <br />issues and asked that the Residents hold their comments until the June 20~' meeting. He assured <br />• the Residents that he has his own concerns and has to remain cautious and careful. He stated that <br />the Council wants to provide everyone with their opportunity to speak on the issues. He stated <br />that he is still somewhat uncomfortable with the final wrap up of the resolution adding that he <br />would like verbiage incorporated that states should the development not proceed that this would <br />remain same. <br />Director Ericson stated that the resolution could be amended or revised. <br />Council Member Stigney expressed concerns stating that he does not want to revert it back to <br />where the City would be unable to do anything with it and he does not want to go to the other <br />extreme where it excludes all other options. <br />Mayor Many clarified that he would like it stated that they are not removing the designation of <br />The Bridges, but word it to state that the designation could be changed. <br />B. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution 6541, Accepting and Approving the <br />Final Draft of The Bridges Office Development Alternative Urban Areawide <br />Review Document. <br />Director Ericson stated that this is a culmination of the AUAR process. He explained that this <br />serves the purpose of looking at the environmental aspects and impacts on a parcel. He stated <br />• that the City authorized RLK to prepare the AUAR documentation noting that it was prepared <br />and then sent out to the Regional Stakeholders for their review. He stated that many comments <br />