My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2010/08/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
Agenda Packets - 2010/08/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:49:39 PM
Creation date
7/3/2018 11:56:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
8/23/2010
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
8/23/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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 August 9, 2010 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller indicated Coventry Senior Living has submitted an application for a 1 <br />major subdivision of three parcels at 2320-2340 County Highway 10 and 5260 O’Connell Drive. 2 <br />The proposed 2.18 acre subdivision would replat the three lots into one parcel. Major 3 <br />subdivisions are a two-step process. First, a preliminary plat is submitted and reviewed by the 4 <br />Planning Commission and City Council. Then a final plat is submitted after any recommended 5 <br />changes are done, and the City Council makes a final decision. This major subdivision request 6 <br />meets City Code requirements. The preliminary plat and title commitments have gone through a 7 <br />legal review by the City Attorney. The payment of the park dedication fee and trail contribution 8 <br />amount will be required before the City signs the final plat for recording with Ramsey County. 9 <br />She reviewed the site plan specifics and building materials in detail. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Planning Associate Heller stated the Planning Commission considered this proposal at their July 12 <br />21, 2010 meeting. Staff mailed letters to property owners within 500 feet of the project site to 13 <br />notify residents about the meeting even though it was not a public hearing. No residents attended 14 <br />the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission voted unanimously 6-0 15 <br />(Stevenson absent) to approve the rezoning, development review and preliminary plat. She 16 <br />indicated the developer has held two neighborhood meetings and received a great deal of input 17 <br />on the development. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Coventry Senior Living proposal. The 20 <br />Council should hold the introduction and first reading of Ordinance 848 and approve Resolution 21 <br />7655. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mayor Flaherty reviewed an email received by staff from Mark Gavett, 5210 Jeffery Drive, who 26 <br />opposed the Coventry Development. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Greg Johnson, Coventry Senior Living, thanked the Council for reviewing the plans this evening 29 <br />and stated he was available to take questions or comments. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Hearing no additional public input, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. 32 <br /> 33 <br />Council Member Stigney questioned if an R-2 buffer was required between Commercial and R-1. 34 <br />Planning Associate Heller stated this would be ideal to provide a buffer, but does not always 35 <br />happen with Commercial properties along Highway 10. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Stigney was pleased with the color renditions of the senior housing building. 38 <br />He asked if there would still be a need for this senior housing development, if the Select Senior 39 <br />Living Housing Program was also completed. Planning Associate Heller explained staff has 40 <br />been told that the market could not support two new buildings at the same time. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Stigney questioned if the development would be funded privately. Mr. Johnson 43 <br />stated he was looking into private funding along with conduit financing. He felt comfortable 44 <br />enough proceeding with their application even though another senior housing development was 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.