Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2023 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />1 March 30, 2023 his officers and local EMT's saved a resident's life after suffering a cardiac arrest. <br />2 Chief Zender explained Sergeant Schultes and Officer Katzenmaier did what they were trained to <br />3 do, along with the fire personnel and EMT's when they arrived on scene. He recognized each of <br />4 the first responders who responded to this call and commended all for their life saving efforts. <br />6 Ben Hall, Allina Health, commended his EMT's for their life-saving efforts. <br />8 Fire Chief Retka, SBM Fire Department, recognized his fire personnel for their life-saving efforts. <br />9 A round of applause was offered by all in attendance. <br />10 <br />11 6. PUBLIC COMMENT <br />12 <br />13 Heather Schuchard, 7984 Woodlawn Drive, reported she was in attendance to speak on the Arden <br />14 Park proposal. She explained she opposed this development because it does not match the <br />15 neighborhood. In addition, the loss of the green space was a concern to her. She discussed how the <br />16 children in the neighborhood use this green space and that it was filled with wildlife. She did not <br />17 believe the City should be giving a break to a multi -billion corporation to earn money on this <br />18 development. She did not agree with the cottages because they required too many variances. She <br />19 expressed concern with the fact the units would not have garages. She made it clear to the Council <br />20 that the community cares about what was occurring in Mounds View. She reported even if the <br />21 public does not attend every meeting, they were following along with the events that were <br />22 occurring. She stated the public puts its trust in the Council and right now there was a lack of trust <br />23 because the public does not feel heard or seen. She feared there was a conflict of interest with the <br />24 proposed development and this was very concerning to her. <br />25 <br />26 Maria Slabiak, 8135 Long Lake Road, reported the majority of the property the Arden Park <br />27 development would be built on a floodplain in a wetland buffer zone. She explained a buffer zone <br />28 was defined as essential protection for species that use a wetland habitat. She questioned if it was <br />29 wise to destroy this buffer zone. She discussed how changing the zoning from R-1 to R-3 on this <br />30 floodplain would add crowding, noise and would reduce property values to the adjacent homes. <br />31 She feared adding a large number of units to the area would adversely impact the drainage for the <br />32 area. She noted her neighbor's backyard floods in wet weather. She stated residents were <br />33 concerned about having wet basements and backyards. She reported she conducted a search on the <br />34 developer and noted there were lawsuits against them for quality complaints and poor foundations <br />35 in three different states. She stated the proposed yard homes do not meet minimum requirements <br />36 for residential construction in Mounds View, nor did the townhomes meet the minimum zoning <br />37 requirements for lot size or setback requirements. She questioned why the City would allow this <br />38 many structures in such a small area. She feared this would be a fire safety concern. She asked <br />39 how the community was benefiting from this development, when 98% of the residents did not <br />40 support the project. She encouraged the City Council to properly represent the residents of Mounds <br />41 View when it comes to this project. She did not believe it was right to put 87 units on seven <br />42 residential lots. She stated this was not the time or location to experiment with expensive <br />43 townhomes or yard homes. She noted the yard homes do not fit into the character of the <br />44 neighborhood and the neighbor's fear how their property value would be impacted. She <br />45 commented further on all of the variances the developer would require and reported this project <br />46 would require too much take from the City. <br />