Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Co <br />mmission <br />Regular Meeting <br />September S, 2001 <br />Page 8 <br />Community Development Director Ericson explained that Staff is bringing this matter before the <br />Commission because it feels distressed at the potential implications for what this chapter of tt�e <br />Code means. He then indicated that the issue is at what point the development contract is <br />required. He further indicated that Subd. 4 could mean that for every building,perniit issued <br />there would need to be a development contract and that concems Staff. <br />Communi#y Development Director Ericson indicated there is an issue as to what would require <br />development review. He then indicated that presently any expansion of a commercial ar <br />industrial property or any subdivision of more than 2 Iots, e�cept a d�velopment where public <br />uiilities were previonsly installed would require review by the PYatu�g�Commission and <br />Council. He further indicated that since there are currently tvVo riiaJo�:�subdivisions in process he <br />felt this would be a good time to review this chapter of the'code. `:�� `,�,�.'- : <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated he felt that the c <br />process but not each zndividual lot. �;-��;� <br />t��� <br />ommisstoner Hegland agreed that the re�i�Vv pro <br />go througli the review <br />s}gi� <br />9 <br />for the subdivision not the <br />individual lots within the development ;������:�� �'�,�� �`�� <br />� ,T:- <br />Chairperson Stevenson inquired as to how the Code has been interpreted in the past. <br />Community,Development Director`Ericson uidicated,;he is not sure how the Code was interpreted <br />in the past because this i� the first major subdivision since he has been working for the City. <br />�g <br />�. <br />, °_ > � ;. , �± .' <br />Commissioner �egland in�cated � felt the intent of the Code is to review t12e subdivisian not <br />the individual,buildiri�s. �` . ._.� � �,:. <br />,- , > <br />� ., � <br />review. , �;�;�.,✓` <br />the surrounding a <br />and bring it bacle; <br />t � r <br />other cities to see what they do for development <br />�tor Ericson commented that anything that has the potential to <br />�uld need to be reviewed. He then stated he would research the <br />the Commission for review. <br />�, `�C;onsid.era�ion of a Resolution removing Travis Cerny from the Planning <br />� - Co.mmission due to non-attendance. <br />Community Development Director Ericson expIained that this Resolution is before the <br />Commission as a housekeeping matter to fmalize the vacation of Travis Cerny's position on the <br />Planning Commission. He further explained that Mr. Cemy had not attended a meeting since <br />May 2, 2001. <br />.� <br />