My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-04-2005
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
05-04-2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:31:35 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:31:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br /> <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Case PD2005-001. Public Hearing and Consideration of the General <br />Concept Plan for a Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development at 2901 and <br />2925 County Road 10 <br /> <br />Planning Associate Prososki explained that Ron Lillestrand, representing Integra Homes, is <br />requesting City approval of a general concept plan to construct 21 townhouse units at 2901 and <br />2925 County Road 10. The proposed development would also include a portion of the rear yard <br />of 8060 Groveland Road. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Prososki advised that the general concept plan is the first stage of the planned <br />unit development process. The advantage to this stage is that the developer is allowed to bring a <br />general site plan for City review and consideration without the need to have all of the other <br />components prepared. If the City approves the concept plan, the developer would then submit <br />additional detailed information for City consideration, which is referred to as the development <br />stage of the PUD. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that the biggest thing to look at is the relationship to the <br />Comprehensive Plan and this is designated as mixed use PUD with a mix of residential and <br />commercial uses. She asked the Commission to consider if this proposed development would fit <br />into the area or cause a negative impact. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that the Code requires 6,500 square feet of land area per unit plus 10 <br />percent density bonus for a PUD and they are planning for 21 units. City Code would allow up <br />to 22 units. She said that the setbacks are listed in the Staff report and briefly reviewed those for <br />the Commission as well as the parking requirements indicating that the proposal does satisfy the <br />parking requirements. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that the plan would need to be amended to include visitor parking as <br />the streets are too narrow to accommodate on street parking. She said that the roundabout in the <br />center of the development is sized adequately for emergency vehicles and noted that this <br />development would increase the traffic on County Road 10 but not enough to cause any real <br />issues. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that the City would need better details for the building types, <br />landscaping, drainage, trailways, snow storage, signage and buffering should this plan proceed. <br />She also indicated that should this plan move forward there would need to be a development <br />review as well as a major subdivision. <br /> <br />Planner Prososki indicated that Staff received many public comments concerning this proposal. <br />One of which is that this is too intense for the area. She said that some residents felt that the <br />layout was poor and that it caused privacy issues as well as concern for loss of trees, the need for <br />screening and privacy fences. She further commented that two residents felt that County Road <br />10 should be developed with commercial uses. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.