01-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mounds View Planning Commission December 16, 1998 Special Meeting Page 5 Obert asked for an explanation as to what would happen if extra parking is needed for a site that has been engineered for a certain amount of parking, or if parking complaints are lodged by neighboring businesses. Ericson said the City has no fall-back plan for this situatio 's is an issue that is supposed to be under the control of the building owner or o •ant die s supposed to be a self-correcting issue. Obert suggested that the surroundi neigh.:4• t• eed protection, not necessarily the business park occupants. The private s 4 ' t.`' '° :,4 a heir parking problems, Brasaemle said. Obert expressed his concerntf off e City n--1" l.e of enforcement for possible parking violations. Nelson sai•k AV e City c. &€ -lp e property rights. as mn7 rr d a zt Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission a A ; olution 565-98, a resolution recommending approval of an alternate site plan, with sti ti. a ;: .si•9, development of the 6.89- acre Building N site, Mounds View Business Park, as a ueste. Group. • Motion/Second: Stevenson/Miller to strike sti• • • ` ,� � o. 2 fro "olution No. 565-98, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an • a`- ent Review) for the Proposed Building N Development, Mou 8 iew rot" f=S • Ayes - 5 ;\.f. s 1 (O=. ) The motion carried. Obert said he didn't agree with p ► $; g the b , k-n of g the site's driveway on the developer. Director • c Work dxx4a 'ch, sai1 s opinion that there should be some type of language ui olutioii.or D 4:74,' .ment eement that would address accidents that could happen beco u- turning' �,:is on the site and the two entrances into the site. Obert • _ said it would rio o the • ,. .Au have to maintain a shared access to the site. Peterson said the issue could be. •=r-ssed _ tatement of liability in the Development Agreement. Ulrich saiJp ea•-ofhav ng o driveways the City would extend the public street into the site and be =. ntained by th Ci ttorney Scott Rigs 7 sat• it would be very difficult to formulate language that would prevent lia : concerns and . 6w or require a developer to come back some time in the future and re the develNp ent agreement. The issues being discussed should be handled in the front en o •e develo•ii ent process, Riggs said. He recommended, as part of the motion, that the dnx , • e the City Council can make up its own mind and staff can suggest a different solar problem, be stated as not being a problem because it is part of the approved plan. Brasaemle suggested that the staff report reflect the Commission's opinion that the driveway issue was not a problem. This would eliminate the need to have the Resolution's language reflect the • Commission's opinion, he added.