Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 26, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting PaLye 8 <br />Ms. Meyer replied that the traffic moves much faster, regardless of the low speed limit. <br />Councilmember Flaherty said it should be brought to police attention. Ms. Dewing said the <br />police are present, but they cannot patrol it all the time and traffic is very fast. Councilmember <br />Flaherty said he would like to see more elevations and is not convinced one way or another. <br />Councilmember Gunn stated she is leaning toward the approval of the rezoning because since she <br />has sat on boards in the past, she knows that it was the vision that further north on County Road <br />10 would be more residential with town homes and scattered small office buildings. She <br />explained that if the re -zoning is not approved, there is the potential that something else could be <br />built on the property generating far more traffic. She stated that no matter what goes in, they will <br />only have access off of County Road 10. She asked if the City would rather see residential or <br />business traffic on the streets. <br />Councilmember Stigney noted that according to the Planning Commission resolution, re -zoning <br />to R3 is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the area. He asked what is consistent <br />with Comprehensive Plan for the area and said he is not sure what else would go in there. He <br />asked what the redevelopment expectation for the area is and if commercial zoning is beneficial. <br />He said his concern is what type of development will go in the area if the town homes do not. IIe <br />also noted he does not want to see low -end housing and would also like to see renderings of the <br />proposed development. <br />Director Ericson stated that on a daily basis, town homes generate fewer trips daily than a single- <br />family home would and significantly less traffic than an office building or business. IIe said <br />other uses of the property would generate more traffic than the town homes. <br />Councilmember Thomas stated she appreciates the Staff report and opportunity to discuss the <br />issue before any decisions are made. She said the problem she has is that when the Commission <br />makes a recommendation, the Council should have a compelling reason to overturn it. She said <br />this development may be the best shot the City has to plan for the area, and said she wants to get <br />more information and have a specific reason to re -zone. She said she looks forward to working <br />with Staff on this project. <br />Councilmember Gunn asked how long ago the areas in question were zoned. Community <br />Development Director Ericson replied that the zoning, as presented, has been that way for <br />decades. He said the last property to be re -zoned was the Johnson property when it was re -zoned <br />to R-O, and otherwise, the properties are reflective of historical zoning from a significant amount <br />of time ago. <br />Director Ericson said the designation with the Comprehensive Plan is relatively new, adopted in <br />2001 or 2002. He said the basis for the mixed -use designation in the area was the reflection of <br />the desire to have redevelopment occur, and the mixed -use provided the most flexibility for the <br />City since at the time there was no clear vision. <br />Councilmember Gunn asked about the B-3 property, and Director Ericson said it is a former <br />commercial property and retains the commercial designation. <br />