Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council July 11, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 17 <br />Charter that citizens have a right to address issues before the Council. He stated that he is <br />• unaware of any communication with the City of Blaine, particularly with the fact that they are <br />going to lose some revenue producing properties to be turned into a parking lot. He asked what <br />Blaine's reaction was to the changes in the Comprehensive Plan for Mounds View and asked if <br />they reviewed the changes or did they respond to the City Council or Tom Ryan. <br />Director Ericson confirmed that the City of Blaine supported the City of Mounds View's request <br />to change the future land use to office. <br />Mr. McGarry asked if they support it knowing that a portion of their industrial land would be <br />taken away. He stated that he didn't know it until the last minute noting that the first map he saw <br />was in relationship to the property in Mounds View. He asked if the City of Blaine knew, at the <br />time of their approval, that the impact from the development would extend beyond Mounds <br />View's border to the extent of removing tax producing buildings and properties from their City. <br />He asked if they were aware of this at the time and did they make specific approval to that <br />condition. <br />Director Ericson stated that the City of Blaine was aware of that activity and the potential for <br />redevelopment within their own community. He stated that these are two separate issues noting <br />that Blaine was aware of it and they did support the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the <br />proposed development. <br />• Mr. McCarty indicated that he is not against this adding that the Council should be commended <br />for the investments they have made in the parks system. He indicated that the City has spent over <br />$500,000 in parks improvements and that he applauds them for their investment and hard work <br />with the parks system but he does not understand how members of this City Council can <br />constantly bang the dnun that the City is putting $40,000 a year into a golf course that is about to <br />be removed and yet at the same time vote in over $231,000, since 2001, for the North Suburban <br />Tourist Bureau. He stated that it is a little difficult to understand when the Council is approving <br />$57,000 per year for the North Suburban Tourist Bureau and then whine about $40,000 for a <br />good recreational facility, such as the golf course, that serves everyone from the developmentally <br />disabled to the hearing impaired and senior citizens. He stated that he is having a hard time <br />understanding this. He stated that he doesn't care where the money comes from it is still the <br />citizen's money, no matter where it comes from. <br />Economic Development Coordinator Backman clarified that the money that go to the CPB are <br />based on a 3-percent lodging tax noting that there are very specific uses for those monies. <br />Barbara Haake, 3024 County Road I, referenced the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment and <br />asked if there was specific zoning that the City was required to put in place by the courts in order <br />to be able to place the billboards. <br />City Attorney Riggs stated that he does not see a direct tie and explained that the property, based <br />on what the court said, had to match the use that was actually being made. He further explained <br />• that the public facility zoning was not consistent with the business-type setting and that was the <br />