My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-16-2004
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Commission (Disbanded)
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
04-16-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2022 1:39:38 PM
Creation date
1/12/2015 2:47:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV EDC
EDC Document Type
Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
121
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
PUD Amendment Report <br /> Building N <br /> April 12, 2004 <br /> Page 2 <br /> 0 Service Fund. Recognizing the City's concerns about revenue loss, BBC's elders approved <br /> an annual $25,000 Mounds View Service Project Fund. The concept behind the Service <br /> Project Fund is that BBC sets up the fund within the church and each year the City and BBC <br /> would jointly identify items or projects for funding, up to $25,000. The items however would <br /> need to coincide with BBC's mission and values. At the April 5, 2004 work session, there <br /> were many concerns about the way that the Service Project would be set up, including the <br /> fact that there was no assurance that BBC would continue to contribute the money, as the <br /> Service Project Fund agreement is not legally binding, and that there are stipulations <br /> attached to money. There were also concerns that at some point the City and BBC may not <br /> reach an agreement on which items the church will contribute to. A representative of BBC <br /> suggested that a default fund could be set up, whereby if the City and BBC were unable to <br /> agree on specific items, the money would automatically go to a designated fund, such as <br /> parks and recreation or another predetermined project. BBC prepared a list of items that <br /> they would be willing to contribute to. <br /> Jobs. In addition to the loss of TIF and tax revenue, as the Council pointed out at the April 5, <br /> 2004 work session, there is also the loss of jobs to consider and the loss of weekday traffic for <br /> other businesses in the community. In reaction to these concerns, representatives of BBC <br /> prepared some documents regarding the amount of traffic that the downtown church site <br /> generates during the week. <br /> 0 Impact to Potential Future Uses Under Chapter 500 of the Municipal Code, allowing a <br /> church to locate in "Building N"would restrict buildings within five hundred feet of the property <br /> line of Building N from obtaining an intoxicating liquor license. Section 502. 04 Subdivision 2(c) <br /> states that a license will not be granted to a building within five hundred feet of a church or <br /> school unless the business receives 60%or more of it's annual gross sales revenue from food <br /> sales. Attachment 3 of this report shows the buildings that would be affected by the five <br /> hundred foot buffer. The Planning Commission discussed Section 502.04 Subdivision 2(c)at <br /> their regular meeting on Wednesday,April 7, 2004 and will further review the topic and discuss <br /> the possibility of a code amendment at their next regular meeting on Wednesday, April 21, <br /> 2004. <br /> Community Feedback. Notices were sent to all property owners within three hundred and fifty <br /> feet(350')of Building N. Staff received comments regarding the PUD amendment from some <br /> property owners in or around the Mounds View Business Park. The property owners are A"�•� <br /> opposed to the PUD amendment because they feel that a business with employees present Garrett <br /> during the week will be more beneficial to the business community. <br /> Planning Commission Action. At their meeting on March 3, 2004, the Commission <br /> adopted Resolution 753-04 recommending approval of the PUD amendment. While the <br /> Commission had many concerns regarding the amendment including financial impacts, <br /> precedent, jobs and spin-off development, they recommended approval based strictly on <br /> land use perspective, in that the use would NOT be incompatible or adversely impacting <br /> 0 the area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.