Minutes - 2008/09/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 22, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 3 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. 7:OSpm Public Hearing to Consider a Major Subdivision and PUD Amendment to Add "Retail" as an Allowed Use at the Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10. Planner Heller provided an overview of the requested major subdivision and PUD amendment to add retail as an allowed use at the Mermaid. She then said that the developer has requested a third lot be added just two hours before this meeting. Therefore, staff recommends that this matter be tabled to allow time for staff to review the request and discuss it with both the City Attorney and the developer's attorney. Mayor Marty opened the public hearing. Barb Haake of 3025 County Road I said that she was a part of the Rice Creek Watershed work on this parcel in the past. Ms. Haake asked what has changed in the Ordinance that would allow reduction in parking. Planner Heller indicated that she is not sure of the intentions of the owners with regard to selling but cross access parking will be a necessary requirement no matter what the intent. Community Development Director Roberts indicated that there was talk of a coffee shop with a drive through but that is all speculative. He then said that cross easements for parking would need to be recorded with the plat, if the project moves forward. Ken Glidden of 5240 Edgewood Drive asked if there is any experience with shared ownership of commercial property in the City and how it works. Clerk Administrator Ericson indicated that the Mermaid is recorded as a separate lot, and the AmericInn Hotel is a separate lot as well. Dan Mueller, 8343 Groveland Road, said that the City has TIF districts and that would be an area that already has or is eligible for TIF money, so he is wondering if that means that new construction would be eligible. Finance Director Beer provided an explanation of the TIF district structure, and that TIF had not been requested for this project. Council Member Mueller indicated that, regarding the 60-day rule, she is concerned that the City would be held to October 26 for making a decision, even if the company is the one making last minute changes. She then asked if the clock resets now that the plan was changed. Community Development Director Roberts noted that the retail piece of this project would be subject to the existing 60 day rule but the other piece, since the request was changed, would have 60 days from the submittal. He then said that, if staff cannot obtain all of the information in time to meet the Planning Commission and Council schedule, an extension can be requested. Council Member Mueller indicated that she would like to obtain an extension. MOTION/SECOND: Mueller/Stigney. To Obtain a 60 Day Extension.