Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 <br />May 12, 1997 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />Ms. Sheldon proceeded to summarize the proposed project. She noted those items which staff took into <br />consideration when preparing the amendment request as well as how any items of concern were addressed. <br />Ms. Sheldon noted a correction to Page 7 of Resolution No. 5104. The third line of Paragraph 3 should be <br />changed to read "Lower intensity uses would include einglo-family Lousing (up to three units per acre), <br />and office uses.'' <br />Attorney Bob Long noted that this Resolution would require a 2/3 vote, therefore it would require approval <br />from at least four of the five council members. <br />Ms. Sheldon noted that changing the Comprehensive Plan does not approve the proposed project. However, <br />the project will not be able to move forward at all without the amendment to the Comp. Plan. <br />The Planning Commission voted 6 - 0 in favor of the Comp Plan Amendment. <br />Ms. Sheldon noted that consideration criteria for rezoning includes whether or not the rezoning is consistent <br />with the Comprehensive Plan (this would be if the Council approved the amendment to the Comprehensive <br />Plan), whether or not it fits with the surrounding area, and if there is a demonstrated need for the use. She <br />noted that the developer has met with residents in the neighborhood to try to determine what adjustments <br />needed to be made to the plan to provide the best buffer they could between the development and the existing <br />neighborhood. In regard to the demonstrated need for the use, the applicant provided a market study indicating <br />the surrounding theaters in radiuses of 3, 5 and seven miles. <br />i Ms. Sheldon procedded to provide a summary of the concerns raised by residents in the discussion of the <br />project. These included wetland and wetland buffer, drainage, soils, vegetation and landscaping, traffic, access, <br />parking, market demand, economic benefits, public safety, impact on schools, etc. <br />Ms. Charleen Zimmer, of SRF Consulting Group, was present and discussed the specifics of the traffic analysis <br />they conducted for the proposed development. The report they prepared also included estimates of traffic <br />generated by five other land use scenarios for the site. The applicant, the Police Chief and the <br />neighborhood would like to see a full movement intersection at the access point off Highway 10, and SRF and <br />staff would like to proceed working with MNDOT on this issue, but would like to get Council's feelings on the <br />project before pursuing this. <br />Council member Trude wondered if the applicant would be open to sharing the costs of putting in a controlled <br />intersection to help defray the costs. Ms. Sheldon stated this would need to discussed with the applicant. <br />Council member Stigney stated he would be uncomfortable going ahead on the project without the controlled <br />intersection. Other options were discussed for the intersection in the event that MNDOT <br />would not approve control signals. Council member Trude noted that the Community Center could <br />significantly affect the traffic in the area, especially at times of Volleyball tournaments, etc. Discussion also <br />followed in regard to the possible need for emergency vehicle controls at the intersection. <br />Council member Stigney asked if any thought has been given to under grounding the overhead power lines <br />during the redevelopment of the area. Ms. Sheldon stated if overhead power lines are on the proposed site, <br />they would need to underground them, ffthey are in the public right of way, it may be necessary for the city to <br />examine whether some type of cooperative project could be done in conjunction with this. This could be <br />something that TIF funds could be used for. <br />• <br />