Agenda Packets - 2005/02/14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council January 24, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 8 created a summary page for publication purposes, but that the whole ordinance is available to see 1 on line and at City Hall. 2 3 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. There being no public comment, Mayor 4 Marty closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. 5 6 MOTION/SECOND. Gunn/Flaherty. To approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance 7 757, an Ordinance Vacating an Unused and Excess Utility Easement Associated with 8265 8 Spring Lake Road. 9 10 ROLL CALL: Marty/Stigney/Gunn/Flaherty. 11 12 Ayes-4 Nays-0 Motion carried. 13 14 C. 7:15 pm. Public Hearing, Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 755, 15 an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code 16 Pertaining to Building Heights in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning 17 District. – Ericson. 18 19 Mayor Marty opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. 20 21 Director Ericson stated that there is an inconsistency in the Zoning Code relating to Planned Unit 22 Developments, and that the PUD Zoning Code is designed to allow for a maximum flexibility 23 to allow for the highest and best development possible, and encourages flexibility to preserve 24 open space, environmental considerations, and other beneficial public purposes. He stated that 25 one of the criteria in looking at a planned unit development is to allow for variation provisions of 26 the Code, including setbacks, height, lot area, width and depth, yard, etc., so it gives the City 27 some greater flexibility in looking at a development so as to preserve and protect certain 28 features. He stated that you can enhance the density, you can increase the height of a building, 29 or decrease setbacks where it’s in the public purpose. He stated that the problem is later on in the 30 City Code under the same Chapter, there is a conflicting provision which is outlined in the 31 second page of his report, regarding building height. He stated this inconsistency was discovered 32 a few years back when they were looking at the Mermaid development. He stated that they were 33 thinking about a hotel that could possibly be five stories, but they did scale that back to three 34 stories. He stated there are still plans in the works that could increase the height of the hotel. He 35 stated that at this point they can’t allow that because it’s somewhat inconsistent with the 36 provisions of the Code. 37 38 Director Ericson stated that the Planning Commission had looked at this, and recognized that 39 there was an inconsistency, and they felt that the intent was to be flexible and not to create 40 restrictions on development, and so they are recommending, and Staff is also recommending, 41 that adoption of this Ordinance would simply add one line to the Code, and this would be 42 under the same Subdivision 12. He stated the new language is, “Unless additional height or 43 stories would serve a better purpose consistent with the stated intent of this Chapter.” 44 45