Laserfiche WebLink
I : <br />.. . .., . :. . .. <br />'.:: -.:� . .' '..��. . :�: :.; . - I <br />I'l���an�l� Vie�r Plarrni�e� Co�r�a��sion �3ecernb�r 16y fl99S <br />1� 5p��i�1 Mettan� Pa�e 5 <br />Obert asked for an explanation as to vahat would happen if extra parkin� is needed for a site that <br />has been engineered for a certain amount of parkirtg, or if paxkin� cornplaints are ladged by <br />neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no iall-back plan %r ihis siivatio his is an <br />issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or o���ant- s supposed to <br />be a self-correc�ing issue. Obert suggested that ihe surroundi ne�gl��i�it�� d��need protectiort, <br />not necessaril the business ark occu anis. The nvaie s; 11 t��C���'c'�'���t� ��rieir arkin <br />Y P P F� � ����=��f p g <br />probiems �rasaemle said, Obert expressed his concem t ��` e City ne�.�.�a�e�., �p�m���pe of <br />9 ��;Y° ��>zs;f��f`��3`C,. <br />enf'orcement for possibie parkin� violations. Nelson sai t e City c �lp �n�'Q���.���ra�t�te <br />property cights. `�"��;;- < >� <br />S�aff was recomme�lding that the Plaeining Commission a <br />recommezadin� approval of an aitern�.te site plan, with sti <br />acce Building IV site, Mounds �ew Business Parlcg a� t� <br />Motion/Second: 5tevenson/Niiller to strik� sti ,.����c <br />Itesolution Recommending Approval of an ��`a `� <br />Proposed Building N Development,lVlou iew Ii <br />Ayes - 5 s I (O ) <br />Obert said he didn't agree with p` g the b< n of <br />Director Q��u�lic W� <br />ianguag� tt� t�`� �sol <br />happen bec�us� t���� <br />said ii wouid r�a� 1�� f <br />� �ti ,� <br />said the issue c,ould �?, <br />�I10E1 S11 . � ���P28� JO� <br />and be �intain�d by <br />o. 2 <br />tian 565-98, a resolution <br />development of the 6.89- <br />� �� Group. <br />�lution No. 565-9�, a <br />Review) for the <br />Th� motion carried. <br />the site's driveway on the developer. <br />opinion that there should be some type of <br />t that would addeess accidents that could <br />r« � � ?- <br />in� z�t� �e�;� is on the site and ihe two entrances into the site. Obert <br />the d���1 ���� have to maintain a shared access to fihe site. Peterson <br />�� . . <br />��sed wz�� tatement of liability in the Development Agreement. <br />^S� ; <br />gl ;v,r,o dn�eways the City woutd extend the public street into the site <br />orney �cott Rig '� sai� it would be very difficult to formulate language that would prevent <br />�oncet-ns and " w or require a develaper to come bacic some time in the future and <br />�re th� deve _? ment agreement. The issu�s being d�scussed shouid be handied in ihe front <br />he dev�lap ;�nt process Itiggs said. He recommmnended, as pari of the motion, that the <br />���;� ., ' <br />�r�ts�ue�r�ule the City Caur�cil can make up its own mir�d and staf� can suggest a different <br />�t���h� problem, be stated as not being a problem 6ecause it is part of the approved placi. <br />Brasaemle suggested thai the sfiaff repor� refl�ct the Commission's opinion that the driveway issue <br />was not a problem. This would el°ur�in�ie ihe need to have the Reso[�fiion's langua�e reflect the <br />Cammission's opinion, he added. <br />