05-19-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn indicated he had brought up at the last meeting the potential issue of the lighting impacting the rental units behind the property. He then said that he had understood that the developer would provide lighting that would be shaded to eliminate cascading light onto adjoining properties. Planner Prososki indicated that the developer had agreed to shield the lighting but, she believed there was consensus that it would be beneficial to light the garage area. Commissioner Zwirn said he does think the garages should be lit from the back but he wants to protect the people in the apartment complex from too much lighting. Mr. LaValle indicated that it would be possible to redirect the light to shine back toward the site to ensure there would not be an impact to the rental units. Planner Prososki indicated that the apartments are more than 175 feet from the CVS site so there should not be an issue. She then said that Staff could add a provision to allow the lighting to be changed in the future if complaints are received. She further noted that the foot candle readings are slightly over Code requirements at the property line in the back but the rental units are 175 feet from the site. The Commission asked that a lighting provision be added to the Resolution. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the rezoning. Planner Prososki explained that portions of the CVS parcel need to be rezoned and pointed those out on the map. She then indicated that she would further clarify the rezoning by adding that, “portions of Lot 2 and Lot 1” are being rezoned. Tom Loucks told the Commission he wanted to go on record as registering a concern in regard to the park dedication fees. He then referred to Page 11 of the staff report where it indicates the park dedication fee should be 10% of the assessed value. He further commented that they do not believe that this request constitutes a major subdivision in terms of the Ordinance because it is really a lot line rearrangement and that difference has consequences in terms of the park dedication fees. Mr. Loucks indicated that they are not creating a development site but are creating an unusually shaped Lot 2 to accommodate the requirements of the City and the Watershed District for ponding requirements and they will not be able to use the property for anything other than a ponding area. He then said that they do not expect that the Commission will change the wording of the Resolution but wanted to go on record to respectfully object to the park dedication fee. Mr. Loucks indicated that they mean no disrespect to the Commission or Staff and thanked the City for the opportunity to go before Council to discuss the park dedication fee.