Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 12, 2022 <br />Regular Meeting Page 11 <br /> <br />deviations with this project and stated she would not be offering her support. She asked that a roll <br />call vote be taken for the introduction of Ordinance 998. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald asked if the Council had any specific changes for the <br />project that would add costs. He noted the developer would like this information prior to <br />December 27. <br /> <br />Mayor Mueller stated there was nothing that would change her mind to support this project. <br /> <br />Council Member Bergeron requested the Council call the question. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Meehlhause. To Waive the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance <br />No. 998, Amending the Official Zoning Map for 2310 Mounds View Boulevard, from R-1 Single <br />Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development. <br /> <br />Motion failed for lack of a second. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Hull/Cermak. To Deny the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance <br />No. 998, Amending the Official Zoning Map for 2310 Mounds View Boulevard, from R-1 Single <br />Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development. <br /> <br />Council Member Hull stated he was part of the developmental review on this project. He indicated <br />he supported the project being reviewed by the full Council, but understood it would be an uphill <br />battle. He thanked the developers for their work with the property owners and staff. He understood <br />there were some positives to this project, but not enough to force the apartment complex on the <br />neighbors. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs reported if the Council denies the First Reading of this Ordinance, the Council <br />would also have to deny the Preliminary Plat and the PUD/Development Review. <br /> <br />Mayor Mueller requested a roll call vote be taken. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL: Bergeron/Cermak/Hull/Meehlhause/Mueller. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />Councilmember Meehlhause stated he was pro-development and supported this project moving <br />forward, but understood the consensus of Council was to not move this project forward. He <br />discussed how this project would need support from both the County and the State before moving <br />forward. In addition, the new Council would have to consider and create TIF financing. He <br />thanked staff and the developer for all of their efforts on this project. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs questioned when the 60 day timeline would expire for this project. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sevald reported the timeline had been extended and the <br />deadline was now February 10, 2023.