Council_Minutes_1988_07_25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council July 25, 1988 Regular Meeting Page Ten Clerk /Administrator Pauley reviewed the request for 14. Consideration an occupancy permit for Building A in the Mounds View of Resolution Business Park, and the two conditions Staff would Number 2361 recommend, that the sodding of the banks of the sto water retention pond on the east side of the building be completed by October 1, 1988, and any difference in the number of trees proposed in the original plan for the project and those actually planted once the entire project has been completed be made up for through supplementary plantings on the site, as agreed to between the developer and the City of Mounds View through a supplementary landscaping plan. Clerk /Administrator Pauley also asked for approval of the certificate of completion and release of forfeiture. Motion /Second: Quick /Hankner to approve Resolution No. 2361, approving the occupancy permit for Building A, Mounds View Business Park, and waive the reading. 5 ayes 0 nays Mayor Linke explained why the number of trees is down fron the original plan, due to the recommended best placement being further apart than was originally planned. He added the numbers will be made up later in the development. Motion /Second: Hankner /Quick to authorize the Mayor and Clerk /Administrator to enter into an agreement for Certificate of Completion and Release of Forfeiture, for Deed Document Number 867973. 5 ayes 0 nays Attorney Meyers advised the preliminary plat presented by Harstad Company must be acted on by the City within a definite time period, and action tonight would be within the prescribed time. He advised the Council to consider the requirements of Chapter 48, with three specific issues to be addressed, the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 square feet, the minimum lot width of 125 feet, and the 100 foot setback require- ment from the wetland. He explained that in order for this development to get off the ground, the developer is requesting varianc`s to those three requirements, stating a hardship due to the platting to the south of theirs which impaired their ability to develop, and that Mounds View's ordinance is overly restrictive. Attorney Meyers advised that in a court nrder from November 16, 1981, in Harstad versus Mounds View, where Mr. Harstad had moved for a temporary injunction against the City on the plat to the south, that the Motion Carried Motion Carried 15. Consideration of Request for Major Subdi- vision, Green- field Estates, Planning Case No. 213 -87