Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission July 16, 1997 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> Director Sheldon stated that the statement could be inserted into the resolution. <br /> Alexander Amundsen, 7810 Eastwood, stated that the whole project should be scratched <br /> because there are too many buildings in the proposed development. <br /> Motion/Second: Brasaemle/Stevenson to approve Resolution 513-97, "Resolution to approve the <br /> variance on parking ratios for Silver Lake Commons, Planning case 487-97", as amended and <br /> acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. <br /> Chair Peterson opened the floor for discussion of the motion. <br /> Commissioner Obert asked who makes the call when additional parking is required in a <br /> case were a variance has been allowed in the parking requirements. <br /> Director Sheldon responded by saying it would depend on whether an agreement <br /> between staff and the property owner could be reached at a staff level, and if an agreement <br /> could not be reached the issue would be forwarded to the Council. <br /> Commissioner Obert stated that in the past the owner usually claims lack of money as a <br /> • reason for not adhering to an order to increase the parking space requirement. <br /> Director Sheldon stated that in this particular case there is a condition on the site plan <br /> that says, "The property owner is obligated to build up to an additional 19 parking spaces <br /> which would meet the parking ratios required by the zoning code and deemed necessary <br /> by the City based on future parking patterns and evidence that parking needs cannot be <br /> satisfied on site. The property owner shall be notified in writing that additional parking <br /> must be built and upon such notice shall construct the additional parking within three <br /> months with consideration for weather conditions." This is an enforcement issue and if <br /> worse comes to worse going to court would be the alternative. <br /> Dorothy Bodrich, 5100 Sunnyside Road, stated that her opinion was that the <br /> development would be a big improvement and she was in favor of the development. <br /> Chair Peterson called for a vote on the motion. <br /> Motion carried: 4 ayes, 1 nay (Obert) <br /> Commissioner Obert stated his reason for dissent as being his opposition of the total <br /> project and to vote in favor of the variance or planning did not make sense. Obert said he <br /> felt the City staff has been pushed and cornered into a project that is bad for the City. <br /> i5 <br />