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 10 <br /> <br />Council Member Hull questioned if the City has ever tried to buy these three parcels. Community 1 <br />Development Director Sevald commented he was not aware of the City trying to purchase these 2 <br />parcels. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Meehlhause stated the Council had three items on the agenda related to Woodale 5 <br />Apartments and action could not be taken on two of the items until the second hearing was held 6 <br />on Ordinance 998. He asked if this was correct. Community Development Director Sevald reported 7 <br />this was the case. He requested the Council hold the first reading and introduce Ordinance 998 and 8 <br />to table action on the Preliminary Plat and PUD/Development Review to December 27. He 9 <br />explained this project required financing from the City, County and State and applications would 10 <br />be submitted to the State the first week in January. He indicated if the Council would like anything 11 <br />changed about this project, the developer would appreciate this being discussed this evening. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Council Member Meehlhause explained the PUD was troubling to him stating he did not 14 <br />understand Item 7 related to the exterior building materials. Community Development Director 15 <br />Sevald explained City Code requires 50% of every exterior wall meets certain standards for 16 <br />exterior material. He noted this building had more than four sides, which made the calculation of 17 <br />this minimum standard difficult. He discussed how a PUD allows for certain deviations from City 18 <br />Code. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Mr. Ackman indicated his intent was to meet or exceed City Code requirements when it came to 21 <br />exterior building materials. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Community Development Director Sevald discussed the type of siding that was being used on the 24 <br />building, noting there was a combination of brick, cement board, fiber siding, wood tone siding 25 <br />and architectural metal. He reviewed an exterior materials board in further detail with the Council. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Council Member Meehlhause questioned how the building would be impacted if the City stuck to 28 <br />the 50% requirement. Community Development Director Sevald commented on how the columns 29 <br />on the building would have to be widened in order to accommodate this requirement. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Council Member Meehlhause discussed the amount of tree removal and noted the developer was 32 <br />being asked to provide 57 trees that would be planted elsewhere in the community. Community 33 <br />Development Director Sevald stated with previous PUD’s it was not uncommon to have a 34 <br />deficiency with trees, where more trees cannot fit on the property. Instead of giving these trees up, 35 <br />the City has had developers donate trees for use on public land. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Council Member Meehlhause explained he supported the developer being required to donate 38 <br />additional trees to the City for use on public lands. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Mayor Mueller indicated her feelings have been pretty clear regarding this project. She explained 41 <br />she had difficulty supporting this project when so many of the neighbors opposed and the PUD 42 <br />guidelines were not being followed. She believed the developer was asking for too many 43 <br />deviations with this project and stated she would not be offering her support. She asked that a roll 44 <br />call vote be taken for the introduction of Ordinance 998. 45 <br /> 46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.