Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/28/06 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined his preference for the City <br />Council making the decision, as was their ultimate responsibility, <br />and spoke in support of continuing consideration of the proposal <br />until the next regular meeting to allow further refinement by the <br />developer for larger, single family homes, and to help the <br />developer meet their deadlines. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan concurred with Councilmember Maschka, <br />opining that the City Council needed to give clear direction to <br />the developer as to what they wanted to see on the parcel for <br />single-family homes. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that he didn't see a significant difference <br />in single-family or twin homes, but spoke in support of allowing <br />the developer another two weeks to work on another proposal. <br /> <br />Staff was directed to provide the City Council with traffic counts <br />on Hamline Avenue and research on whether Hamline would <br />require a potential upgrade to facilitate additional traffic; <br />clarification of ponding and elevation requirements for storm <br />water management and concerns regarding water levels of the <br />homes; impacts and traffic counts for Lydia Avenue; and <br />whether waterproofing would be required for a single-family or <br />twin home facing Hamline A venue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust requested additional staff and developer <br />research and information related to the peak elevation of homes <br />compared to street level to address concerns raised related to <br />driveway elevations. <br /> <br />Klausing moved, Pust seconded, continuing consideration of the <br />request by Moser Homes and Zawadski Homes in cooperation <br />with the Mounds View School District for the property located at <br />2959 Hamline Avenue (PF 3676), until the September 11, 2006 <br />regular City Council meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson clarified the Council actions <br />related to this item. Mr. Anderson noted that the 60-day review <br />deadline expired September 10, 2006, so would need to be <br />extended by the City Council, in the context of additional <br />neighborhood concerns raised tonight; and PUD standards and <br />