Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council August 22, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br />• Ms. Haake stated residents elected the Council and it puts the Council in a tough spot. She noted <br />that the attorney may say if Mounds View doesn't go through with it then Medtronic will sue us. <br />But she thinks Medtronic cares for their public image and does not want their name "blackened." <br />She stated if Medtronic feels they have done the right thing by Mounds View and been a <br />wonderful neighbor, then residents will know that. She stated they are just asking for a vote and <br />more information. They believe the City needs to go through the contract more thoroughly <br />because residents do not believe all of the terms are fair to the City. They want to be of help to <br />the Council and future generations. She stated that Medtronic is a great company and she would <br />agree with $235,000 an acre and an 8-year TIF District. <br />Director Ericson explained that with zoning there is often a time when you need to interpret the <br />Zoning Code and he stands by the fact that an office type of use is a consistent use within the I-1 <br />zoning district. Otherwise the City will need to kick out a number of its office uses within the <br />City. He stated that the project planned will have to go through a Planned Unit Development <br />(PUD) on the site which, in essence, is a rezoning consistent with the anticipated use of 820,000 <br />square feet of office. <br />Brian Amundsen, 3048 Woodale Drive, asked if there has been any language added or stricken <br />from the final terms of the contract since the July 11 version. City Attorney Riggs stated not as <br />to terms decided by the Council but as to semantics and to make all provisions work together. <br />He stated he could outline those semantic changes, if desired. <br />• Mr. Amundsen asked if all changes were purely semantically. City Attorney Riggs answered in <br />the affirmative and stated the contract is consistent with what the EDA and Council adopted. If <br />there is to be a change in terms, an amendment would be needed and it would have to come back. <br />Mr. Amundsen asked about the status of the street project and whether any projects would be <br />occurring in 2006. He stated he feels some obligation to come back to his neighbors, maybe in <br />the form of a petition, about street improvements. He asked if the City is still moving forward <br />with Option 3. <br />Public Works Director Lee advised that at this point the City is not planning a street project in <br />2006 because there is no time to put together the plans and specifications and go through the <br />public hearing. The City does have plans for the area that Mr. Amundsen lives in and the City <br />could go with that since a public hearing was held for that area. Staff is now evaluating the <br />streets and updating the pavement condition index. That data will be used to determine which <br />area to next consider. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated this issue was discussed at a Council worksession as well as what <br />streets really need to be done. She explained this involves building a project from scratch and it <br />needs to be defended what project should be done first. <br />Mary Scotch, 7806 Gloria Circle, stated she knows Councilmember Gunn worked very hard on <br />• the Festival in the Park but she wants to address the fact of looking at the deal because the <br />bottom line is that the golf course is the only asset residents have. She stated she has been asking <br />