My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes - 2005/11/14
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Minutes - 2005/11/14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2025 4:21:32 PM
Creation date
3/5/2025 4:21:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Minutes
MEETINGDATE
11/14/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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 November 14, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />Community Development Director Ericson advised that SYSCO Minnesota will be expanding <br />their site at 2400 County Road J to add additional vehicle and truck parking and to provide a <br />greater separation between the building and the internal drive aisle. In recognition of this and <br />land transfer to SYSCO, an agreement is before the Council for authorization to provide the City <br />with an access easement to a proposed billboard along Highway 10 and removal of reverter <br />language on a triangular piece of land. He stated they also talked about an easement for a <br />parking lot to serve a trailway in the SYSCO Outlot area, but that has been eliminated. Rather, <br />SYSCO has agreed to at least consider granting an easement, which is not as much force as <br />"SYSCO will." He explained staff is not sure if that is the most appropriate location for a trail <br />access and recommends adoption of the resolution. <br />Councilmember Flaherty stated he understands the easement for the trail system but would like <br />more concrete language in case the City decides that is the best location for a trail system and <br />access. He asked why SYSCO would not want to grant an easement. <br />Director Ericson stated there are several issues that need to be resolved with that location because <br />that leg of the intersection is private and there are traffic considerations of vehicles entering and <br />leaving that location. SYSCO is concerned there may be traffic movement conflicts as their <br />trucks leave or enter the site. There is also a potential issue for conflict with public vehicles <br />accessing that location. He explained that SYSCO is not opposed to granting the access but the <br />issue is that the City does not know, at this time, if it will be in that location. <br />• City Administrator Ulrich noted this is an access of a road from the parking lot and it is not the <br />trailway itself. There is no problem with SYSCO having a trailway link but the issue is having a <br />road access point. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she is comfortable with the language as presented because when <br />this is discussed she wants to hear SYSCO's legitimate concerns. The City is not yet ready to <br />make that decision and she does not want there to be a situation where SYSCO feels shut down <br />from voicing their concerns. She agreed that it is too early to discuss the access point issue. <br />Mayor Marty stated he is also comfortable with the language and that SYSCO is open to working <br />with the City on this issue. <br />Councilmember Thomas noted there are also issues .with the County and Mn/DOT at that <br />location. She pointed out that including this language allows the City to have the opportunity to <br />discuss the easement with SYSCO in the future. <br />Mayor Marty read the last sentence of Section 1.02, "SYSCO desires to remove the above <br />reverter clause and provide the City with no restrictions to that portion of the City Property as <br />described and illustrated in Exhibit A, commonly known as the "Triangle Parcel." He asked why <br />the City is removing that parcel from the reverter clause. <br />• Director Ericson explained that early in the conversation. with Medtronic, there was a potential <br />that part of that parcel could be used for part of the building. He noted there is already an <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.