My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
Agenda Packets - 2005/10/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:40 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 12:48:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/24/2005
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/24/2005
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
297
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 July 25, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br />John Kroeger, Chairperson for the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Commission expressed his 1 <br />agreement with Ms. Palm noting that the Commission was quite surprised at the amount of the 2 <br />TKDA bid. He stated that the Commission is not sure why or how TKDA ended up so far off 3 <br />with their bid amount noting that the Commissioners realized that the Council would have 4 <br />additional questions about the project. He stated that the Commission would review other 5 <br />construction resources and options noting that the current options available would be to leave the 6 <br />building as it is, anything besides this would cost money. He stated that when they looked at the 7 <br />Hillview building they did review stick construction versus cement construction. He indicated 8 <br />that the stick did cost less noting that there was discussion regarding the long-term. He noted 9 <br />that the cement block would stay longer adding that in looking at the Groveland building, had 10 <br />they used the cement block you have to wonder if we would even be having this discussion. He 11 <br />stated that ultimately they might be surprised at the costs for stick construction. He stated that in 12 <br />reviewing it could be found that they might not want a permanent building, that they might want 13 <br />to utilize a mobile trailer. He stated that the Commission would review these options and come 14 <br />back to Council with an updated request for their review and consideration. 15 <br /> 16 <br />MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Approve the cancellation of the bids and Authorize 17 <br />Staff to move forward with a new design process. 18 <br /> 19 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 20 <br /> 21 <br />MOTION/SECOND Thomas/Marty To Deny Resolution 6587 Awarding a Construction 22 <br />Contract and authorizing a Letter of Agreement with TKDA for the Groveland Park Building 23 <br />Replacement Project. 24 <br /> 25 <br /> Ayes-5 Nays-0 Motion carried. 26 <br /> 27 <br />B. 7:10 p.m. Public Hearing and Consideration of an Amendment to the 28 <br />Walgreen’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Allow ‘Office’ as a Land 29 <br />Use in Addition to a ‘Restaurant’ Use. Planning Case PA2005-001 30 <br /> 31 <br />Director Ericson stated that this is a request from Dr. Greg Belting, Silverview Chiropractic 32 <br />Center has applied for an amendment to the Walgreen’s PUD with respect to the allowed land 33 <br />uses for the vacant lot behind Walgreen’s. He stated that there is a vacant lot in between the 34 <br />Community Center and Walgreen’s originally guided as a restaurant pad. He stated that despite 35 <br />the best efforts of Staff, the developers and the property owners it has not been developed as 36 <br />such. He stated that they now have Dr. Greg Belting present requesting an amendment to allow 37 <br />that an office building be built on this site. He stated that the Planning Commission has 38 <br />reviewed this request and examined the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and felt that 39 <br />this was a supportable request. He stated that Staff also recommends approval of this request 40 <br />noting that it is their belief that a single story office would blend in well, would cause less of 41 <br />disturbance late night and less impact to the intersection of County Road 10 and Edgewood 42 <br />Drive. He stated that Staff believes that this would be a good development for the Community 43 <br />and is recommending that City Council approve the proposed Resolution that would amend the 44 <br />PUD to allow an office building on this site. 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.