My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2001 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
2001 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/29/2012 9:14:03 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 4:13:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
932
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Mounds View <br />Planning Commission Report Item # 7 <br />Meet.ing Dc�te: Novembe� 7, 2001 <br />Title: DISCUSSIQN REGARDING A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE OFFICE BUII.,DING <br />UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 7664 GREENFIELD AVENUE, REAPPROVAL <br />REQUESTED BY TONY MEZZENGA (PLAIVNING CASE DE00-002} <br />Introduction: <br />This item was discussed at the October 17th meeting of the Planning Commission. To summarize <br />the development, upon seeking an access pernut from Ramsey County for the driveway onto <br />County Road I, Mr. Mezzenga was told the driveway could not be located where the plans <br />indicated due to the presence of an LP4 Manhole Curb Box Inlet. The County has denied a11 <br />requests to relocate or reconstruct the stormsewer. <br />It was proposed that perhaps the stormsewer could be located in an island of the drive aisle, with a <br />lane of traffic on either side. After some engineering review and feedback from the County, this <br />option has been determined to be unworkable due to the separation needed from either side of the <br />catch basin and the potential confusion which may arise from the drive aisles separated by as much <br />as 21 feet. As a resutt, the applicant has had the site plan redrawn to show the access onto <br />Greenfield Avenue and the parking lot reoriented so that there would not be any loss of parking <br />stalls. The re�vised site plan, date stamped Oct 29, 2001, is included for your reference. <br />Discussion: <br />Ths problem with this solution is that the Commission had i�dicated a reluctance to have the access <br />on Greenfield. As I remarked at the last meeting, I reviewed the minutes from the previous meetings <br />and found little documentation with regard to the location of the access. That is not surprising, <br />however, because it was always planned that the driveway would access County Road I. It should be <br />noted that there were concerns raised at the meetings about the sa£ety of takuzg access directly onto <br />County Road I, the City's second most traveled roadway, and also because of how close the access <br />would be to the Tom Thumb access. From an access management point of view, relocating the <br />driveway onto Greenfield Avenue would be safer and would be the recommendation of Ra�nsey <br />County. The amount of projected vehicle trips generated from this development would be minimal <br />and as such would have little impact upon the neighborhood <br />Recommendation: <br />Review and discuss the amended site plan. Tf found acceptable, given the circumstances, staff has <br />drafted Resolution 679 which recommends approval of the revised site plan. <br />t �� ���.� <br />James Ericson, Community Development Director <br />N:\DA7AIGROUPS\COMDEV1Development Cases1De00-002 (Meuenga)1Mezzenga Report - Oct 17, 2001.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.