Agenda Packets - 1997/06/02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

77 7'17 Page 4 , F ' ; .ji ��; ' `) �^ i May 12, 1997 ,. .11 • Mounds View City Council 1 Ms. Sheldon proceeded to summarize the proposed project. She noted those items which staff took into 2 consideration when preparing the amendment request as well as how any items of concern were addressed. 3 4 Ms. Sheldon noted a correction to Page 7 of Resolution No.5104. The third line of Paragraph 3 should be 5 changed to read"Lower intensity uses would include single-family housing(up to three units per acre), 6 and office uses." 7 8 Attorney Bob Long noted that this Resolution would require a 2/3 vote,therefore it would require approval 9 from at least four of the five council members. 10 11 Ms. Sheldon noted that changing the Comprehensive Plan does not approve the proposed project. However, 12 the project will not be able to move forward at all without the amendment to the Comp.Plan. 13 The Planning Commission voted 6-0 in favor of the Comp Plan Amendment. 14 15 Ms. Sheldon noted that consideration criteria for rezoning includes whether or not the rezoning is consistent 16 with the Comprehensive Plan(this would be if the Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive 17 Plan),whether or not it fits with the surrounding area,and if there is a demonstrated need for the use. She 18 noted that the developer has met with residents in the neighborhood to try to determine what adjustments 19 needed to be made to the plan to provide the best buffer they could between the development and the existing 20 neighborhood. In regard to the demonstrated need for the use,the applicant provided a market study indicating 21 the surrounding theaters in radiuses of 3,5 and seven miles. 22 23 Ms. Sheldon proceeded to provide a summary of the concerns raised by residents in the discussion of the 24 project. These included wetland and wetland buffer,drainage,soils,vegetation and landscaping,traffic,access, 25 parking,market demand,economic benefits,public safety, impact on schools,etc. 26 27 Ms. Charleen Zimmer,of SRF Consulting Group,was present and discussed the specifics of the traffic analysis 28 they conducted for the proposed development. The report they prepared also included estimates of traffic 29 generated by five other land use scenarios for the site. The applicant,the Police Chief and the 30 neighborhood would like to see a full movement intersection at the access point off Highway 10,and SRF and 31 staff would like to proceed working with MNDOT on this issue,but would like to get Council's feelings on the 32 project before pursuing this. 33 34 Council member Trude wondered if the applicant would be open to sharing the costs of putting in a controlled 35 intersection to help defray the costs. Ms. Sheldon stated this would need to discussed with the applicant. 36 37 Council member Stigney stated he would be uncomfortable going ahead on the project without the controlled 38 intersection. Other options were discussed for the intersection in the event that MNDOT 39 would not approve control signals. Council member Trude noted that the Community Center could 40 significantly affect the traffic in the area,especially at times of Volleyball tournaments,etc. Discussion also 41 followed in regard to the possible need for emergency vehicle controls at the intersection. 42 43 Council member Stigney asked if any thought has been given to under grounding the overhead power lines 44 during the redevelopment of the area. Ms. Sheldon stated if overhead power lines are on the proposed site, 45 they would need to underground them. If they are in the public right of way,it may be necessary for the city to 46 examine whether some type of cooperative project could be done in conjunction with this. This could be 47 something that TIF funds could be used for. • 48