08-14-2006 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 Ms. Meyer replied that the traffic moves much faster, regardless of the low speed limit. 1 Councilmember Flaherty said it should be brought to police attention. Ms. Dewing said the 2 police are present, but they cannot patrol it all the time and traffic is very fast. Councilmember 3 Flaherty said he would like to see more elevations and is not convinced one way or another. 4 5 Councilmember Gunn stated she is leaning toward the approval of the rezoning because since she 6 has sat on boards in the past, she knows that it was the vision that further north on County Road 7 10 would be more residential with town homes and scattered small office buildings. She 8 explained that if the re-zoning is not approved, there is the potential that something else could be 9 built on the property generating far more traffic. She stated that no matter what goes in, they will 10 only have access off of County Road 10. She asked if the City would rather see residential or 11 business traffic on the streets. 12 13 Councilmember Stigney noted that according to the Planning Commission resolution, re-zoning 14 to R3 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He asked what is consistent 15 with Comprehensive Plan for the area and said he is not sure what else would go in there. He 16 asked what the redevelopment expectation for the area is and if commercial zoning is beneficial. 17 He said his concern is what type of development will go in the area if the town homes do not. He 18 also noted he does not want to see low-end housing and would also like to see renderings of the 19 proposed development. 20 21 Director Ericson stated that on a daily basis, town homes generate fewer trips daily than a single-22 family home would and significantly less traffic than an office building or business. He said 23 other uses of the property would generate more traffic than the town homes. 24 25 Councilmember Thomas stated she appreciates the Staff report and opportunity to discuss the 26 issue before any decisions are made. She said the problem she has is that when the Commission 27 makes a recommendation, the Council should have a compelling reason to overturn it. She said 28 this development may be the best shot the City has to plan for the area, and said she wants to get 29 more information and have a specific reason to re-zone. She said she looks forward to working 30 with Staff on this project. 31 32 Councilmember Gunn asked how long ago the areas in question were zoned. Community 33 Development Director Ericson replied that the zoning, as presented, has been that way for 34 decades. He said the last property to be re-zoned was the Johnson property when it was re-zoned 35 to R-O, and otherwise, the properties are reflective of historical zoning from a significant amount 36 of time ago. 37 38 Director Ericson said the designation with the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, adopted in 39 2001 or 2002. He said the basis for the mixed-use designation in the area was the reflection of 40 the desire to have redevelopment occur, and the mixed-use provided the most flexibility for the 41 City since at the time there was no clear vision. 42 43 Councilmember Gunn asked about the B-3 property, and Director Ericson said it is a former 44 commercial property and retains the commercial designation. 45