Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 15, 1997 111 <br /> Special meeting Page 2 <br /> 4. Citizen Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda <br /> No citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda were consider> <br /> .11•.11 • <br /> AM <br /> 5. <br /> Planning Case No. 505-97 A.N: <br /> xxxx Program Avenue `€x } `> ' <br /> •`.iii::N.M1ti •.{:...wi..y;. <br /> Applicant: Everest Group, Ltd. '• <::ir;s•::<;;�>::..,a>:,Y <br /> Consideration of Resolution No. 531-97 Regarding a 1Vta .livisi >tiv• <br /> on Combiniri �rParcels <br /> into One for the Proposed Building N Development, Mo:F ;>Business Park East Second <br /> Addition. v' <br /> Thea applicant, Everest Group, Ltd. was absen : '` ``':`!hig `• tin . <br /> PP p, t:.��:a .� �:: �:e g <br /> Associate Ericson gave the Comm ssion a b. ixf`bi ek.r eport on the Planning Case <br /> as follows: He told the Commission that the onginit < an was approved by the City <br /> on October 24, 1994. At thane the p .t was not= ed with Ramsey County within the • <br /> time frame allowed. Because fthis for the site plan needs to be reviewed again by the <br /> Planning Commission and reapprovedthe CktCouncil. <br /> • <br /> As c a e Ericsa to an o : <P1997 PlanningCommission meetingwhere <br /> easementlvacation �� >..dedication,the possibility of additional right of waywould <br /> g <br /> be riOgdWitg..park dediatimfgg and the reapproval of the Development review were <br /> di cu <br /> Assiate Erif ::the Commission that these items have been addressed and the <br /> 40- <br /> ;owner and the Chi:_" dome to terms on the above imssues. It is Staffs recommendation <br /> :«:':'that the Planning ► ission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 531-97, <br /> recommending approval of the major subdivision request of Everest Group, Ltd., for the <br /> Mounds View siness Park East 2nd Addition plan, with stipulations. <br /> <``<'<>Commisstoner Miller asked if the buildingfootprint is the same square footage as was on <br /> P q g <br /> gi'ial plan. . <br /> Associate Ericson confirmed that it was, adding that the new development shows six <br /> fewer parking spaces. He continued stating the decrease in parking spaces may be due to <br /> increased drainage or runoff necessities. . <br />