My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2022/12/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2022
>
Agenda Packets - 2022/12/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:51:48 PM
Creation date
1/10/2023 2:35:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
12/27/2022
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
Packets
Date
12/27/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 December 12, 2022 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br />commented on how this neighborhood has been impacted in recent years and feared that the City 1 <br />did not care about this neighborhood. He discussed how the financial benefits offered to the 2 <br />developer would be put on the backs of all Mounds View residents and he did not believe this was 3 <br />fair. He encouraged the City to not support this development or the proposed TIF district. 4 <br /> 5 <br />Pat Leary, 5250 O’Connell Drive, stated his parents moved to Mounds View in 1964 and he 6 <br />attended Edgewood and Mounds View High Schools. He reported these schools did not need more 7 <br />students as they were already full to capacity. He believed the City had enough rental property and 8 <br />he encouraged the City Council to not cram more people into the community on this small parcel 9 <br />of land. He indicated this was an unnecessary project that should not proceed. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Bob King, 7408 Silver Lake Road, stated he has had the feeling that Mounds View puts the cart 12 <br />before the horse. He understood the City can continue to build apartment buildings, but questioned 13 <br />where these residents would find services such as restaurants and grocery stores. He anticipated 14 <br />these residents would move somewhere else in order to be closer to these services. He suggested 15 <br />the Council focus on developing its limited amount of land into the retail services the current 16 <br />residents of Mounds View need. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Zack Lindstrom, 8378 Long Lake Road, thanked everyone for coming forward and voicing their 19 <br />concerns regarding this project. He stated when he was reviewing this project in the packet, it 20 <br />appears the original purpose was to have the property rezoned for a business. He discussed the 21 <br />City’s need for more jobs. He reported in the City’s goals the Council wanted to have a mix of 22 <br />housing types reflective of the needs and desires of the community. He commented, though it was 23 <br />not scientific, a poll was completed online and 214 of 236 people voted against this project. He 24 <br />stated this tells him this project was not something the community was desiring. He encouraged 25 <br />the Council to consider a precedent could be set if this project were approved with seven exceptions 26 <br />and TIF was offered. He asked that the Council be a good neighbor and realize this was not a good 27 <br />project for this neighborhood. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Eileen Burns, 5109 Irondale Road, stated she moved to Mounds View 34 years ago. She indicated 30 <br />she loved the idea of greenspace, trees and wildlife. She encouraged the Council to hear the 31 <br />concerns of the neighbors noting this project was not the right fit for this property and was not 32 <br />right for Mounds View. She suggested the Council not rezone or change ordinances in order to 33 <br />accommodate this project. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Natalie Grosam, 2255 County Road H2, explained she was concerned with the sense of community 36 <br />in Mounds View was being lost. She noted she has lived in Mounds View for less than 10 years 37 <br />and she was ready to move. She reported the teachers in the schools were overwhelmed and stated 38 <br />the City did not need more people and more traffic. She feared that her opinion and the opinion of 39 <br />the neighbors didn’t matter, which was a concern to her. She encouraged the Council to take into 40 <br />consideration how this type of development would impact their home if it was placed in their 41 <br />backyard. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Hearing no further public input, Mayor Mueller closed the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. 44 <br /> 45 <br />Community Development Director Sevald explained Ramsey County had reviewed this project 46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.