Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 4, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson commented that in 2003 when a similar project was proposed, a major issue was <br />not just the fact that the earlier proposal contained less than 3 acre minimum, but that it was <br />removing the middle section of a future PUD that went from Steve’s Appliance all the way to the <br />residential homes on the other side of the gas station. He noted the proposal before the Planning <br />Commission tonight is not that much different, other than having more property in the back and <br />does not take into consideration that the idea was to have a mixed use PUD for the entire block. <br />He said that if this were to be approved, it would narrow the scope of the Comprehensive Plan, <br />and that the Commission needs to discuss whether the City wants to accept a smaller project, <br />which would prevent achievement of the goal of a mixed use PUD for the area. <br /> <br />Brian Bourassa from MFRA Engineering, representing Integra Homes, addressed the <br />Commission and explained they have been working on this project for a few years. He also said <br />that the private street is an issue because they do not have the room for the required 60 foot right <br />of way for public streets, but they did meet with the fire department on emergency access and <br />agreed to do a turn around for the main entrance and also talked about the potential for sprinkling <br />the units but they have not committed to doing so. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated that they met with Staff concerning the type of development after <br />realizing that with the required setbacks from a commercial development to a residential <br />property makes the B3 zoned parcel not very usable for a commercial development but they did <br />look at a mixed use PUD. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated that the proposed development is less dense than would be allowed by <br />Code. He then reviewed the Staff plan and noted that they like their plan better than staff’s plan <br />as it provides for more green space and more of a buffer from Highway 10. He further <br />commented that they feel their plan works better aesthetically as well as from an engineering <br />standpoint for drainage. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated that they are willing to do some screening and/or privacy fences to <br />enhance privacy and are willing to meet with residents privately to discuss what each would like <br />to see for screening. He suggested flexibility with rear yard setbacks within the PUD to squeeze <br />the buffer and allow ample room for backyards and allow a little more buffer and greater room <br />for privacy fencing and plantings. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa indicated that they would be open to working on neighboring properties to do <br />landscaping and screening if residents are interested but they would not push that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked how the developer plans to accommodate visitor parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Bourassa explained that they are considering the entrance road on the west side or west of lot <br />10 for additional parking as well as making the entrance street wider to allow for on street <br />parking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked if there is a snow removal plan.