Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 9, 1986 <br />Regular Meeting / Page rive <br />_------------- � <br />'here were no comments from the Council or the <br />7D. ...,.,sc Cads on 10 <br />:sidents present, so Mayor Linke closed the <br />public hearing and opened the next one at 7:51 <br />PM. <br />There were no comments from the Council or the <br />7E. 0 a R Liquor <br />residents present, so Mayor Linkr closed the <br />public hearing and opened the next one at 7:52 <br />PM. <br />There were no comments from the Council or the <br />7F. Budget Liquor <br />residents present, so Mayor I,inke closed the <br />public hearing and opened the next one at 7:52 <br />PM. <br />There were no comments from the Council or the <br />7G. Simon's Liquor <br />residents present, so Mayor Linke closed the <br />public hearing and opened the next one at 7:52 <br />PM. <br />There were no comments from the Council or the <br />7H. Bel -Rae Ballroom <br />residents present, so Mayor Linke closed the <br />public hearing and opened the next one at 7:53 <br />PM. <br />Director Thatcher reviewed the request of 7I. Chester rlisan <br />rhastPr r.lisen for a mi.^- subdivisio❑ uf his Subdivision, <br />property at 7800 Long Lake Road. tie stated the 7800 Long Lake <br />Planning Cummission has reviewed it and Road <br />recommends approval. <br />r. Glisan reviewed how his property is situated <br />and why he is requesting the minor subdivision. <br />Mayor Linke closed the public hearing and reopened <br />the regular meeting at 7:55 PM. <br />Motion/Second: Haake/Quick to approve Resolution 8. Consideration of <br />No. 2015, recommending Mounds View Planning Case Rslt. No. 2015 <br />No. 190-86, for the Chester Glisan minor sub- <br />division, and waive the reading. <br />4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried <br />Councilmember Haake questioned if leaving the 9. Consideration of <br />development agreement as it stands would cloud Development <br />the agreement with the MTC. Agreement No. <br />86-75 <br />Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied he feels the <br />MTC is nitpicking, in excluding provisions that <br />are not applicable to them. lie explained a standard <br />agreement was used as Staff did not have the time <br />to customize one for this particular case. <br />ouncilmember Ilaake recommended writinq a cover lottor <br />stating that it is a standard form, and exclusions <br />will be made for the MTC. She added they must also <br />consider the phone issue. <br />