Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br />~~ ~ <br />Apri128, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Bill Werner, 2765 Sherwood Road, asked about the status of the Bel Rae. He asked if a report has been <br />obtained from the architect as to the structural and environmental status of the building. He is concerned that <br />the architect has an interest in the building and will basically tell the council what he feels they want to hear. <br />He feels the city should obtain a detailed report including costs, etc. and that the city should hold them <br />accountable to those cost estimates. <br />Mayor McCarty explained that the costs are dependent upon market costs and therefore, very difficult to <br />predict. The architects can only estimate what they think the costs will be. <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS: <br />Public Heating and First Reading of Ordinance Na 599, an Ordinance Approving a Rezoning from B- <br />2 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) !or commercial wes for property located southeast of the <br />Highway 10lSilver Lake Road intersection (2704 - 2740 Highway 10 and 78015i1ver Lake Road). <br />Mayor McCarty opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. <br />Ms. Pam Sheldon, Community Development Director, provided a brief overview of the project. She noted <br />that the action before council would be for a rezoning. This would be the public hearing for the rezoning, and <br />if the council wished, they could approve the first reading of the ordinance. The second reading would take • <br />place at the next council meeting. Ms. Sheldon outlined the Planned Unit Development process that is <br />required She noted that the application is at a general concept plan stage and that this step allows the <br />applicant to get a reading from the council and the community on whether there is agreement that this type of <br />development should go forward, in general terms, before the applicant spends a lot of investment in <br />engineering drawings and more detailed planning. This gives the community a chance to give input oa the <br />types of uses and their approximate arrangement. She noted that she had outlined three different options for <br />the council to review. These included: <br />1) that the Council conduct the Public Hearing, close the hearing and proceed to introduce the Ordinance for a <br />first reading with an exhibit that would be attached to the ordinance that would have a detailed list of rules <br />about what will happen at the next stage; <br />2) that the hearing be conducted, and continue it at another time, asking the applicant to get information on the <br />wetland boundaries, the drainage design, whether the underground parking is feasible and do some additional <br />design work before the first reading of the ordinance (which could be held at the first council meeting in June); <br />3) that the council deny the request and tell the applicant that they can re-apply when they get the additional <br />information. <br />Ms. Sheldon proceeded to outline areas of the ordinance including Exhibit 1 which lays out the rules the <br />development would need to go by at the development stage and when it is actually constructed. <br />Mr. Jim Ericson, Planning Associate, went through the discussion topics related to the development including <br />the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the Highway 10-Area 9 Study, the land uses, the tax impact of <br />the project, the overall project design, access and on-site circulation, traffic study, the drainage plan, natural <br />features and open space, encroachment into the Wetland Buffer, drainage and utility easements, parking, trash • <br />disposal, snow storage, Site Improvement Agreement, and the effect on abutting properties. <br />