Laserfiche WebLink
_ <br />_ <br />Item # 6 <br />City of Mounds View <br />Planning Commission Report <br />Meeting Date: September S, 2001 <br />Title: DISCUSSIONAND REVIEW OFSECTIDN 1006.06 OF THEMDUNDS VCEW <br />CITY CODE PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS <br />Introduction: <br />Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the section of City Code that relates to <br />development controls. This section of City Code is outdated and poses some potential problems <br />concerning the requirements for entering into a development contract. <br />Discussion: <br />The questions that should be addressed include but are not limited to the following: <br />1. What type and e�ent of development should be reviewed by the City? <br />2. What about major subdivisions with separate builders? <br />3, What should trigger a development contract? <br />, 4. Should a public hearing be required? <br />Sta.i�'s primary concem rests in the requirement for a development review associa.ted with a major <br />subdivision. Keith Haratad has submitted an application for an eleven-lot subdivision, yet he has <br />indicated that he would not be the builder. The lots could potentially be developed by eleven <br />dii�erent builders. Would eleven separate "development reviews" be necessary? Or, if a builder <br />only builds one lot, would a development review NOT be required? The Code is not clear. <br />The other concern is that the Code seems to indicate that every time a building permit is reyuired, <br />a development contract is required. While certainly not the intent of the Code, this requirement <br />should be clarified to etiminate any potential confusion <br />Recommendation: <br />Discuss the requirements and provide direction to staff for a possible Code amendment. <br />��� ����"h.. <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director <br />Attactiments: <br />1. Section i 006.06 <br />C:1WII�INT�Pro5lesUime�FavoriteslComm Dev StufflChapter1006 Review - Sept 5, 2001.doc <br />