My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-07-2001
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
03-07-2001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 7:36:37 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 7:36:33 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.
/
12
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 March 7, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />building to be setback even with his building is a normal and customary practice in surrounding <br />communities. <br /> <br />Mr. Jaker, Director of the Minnesota Institute of Health, told the Commission he just met Mr. <br />Winiecki and stated he and his company want to be a good neighbor in Mounds View. He stated <br />his company is sensitive to environmental issues as it is part of their business to advise people on <br />environmental issues. He then introduced Mr. Dzurik of McGough Construction. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik explained he and his company like to tailor a building to their client and the site, <br />which is why they did not conform to the original PUD requirements noting they needed to allow <br />for horizontal expansion in the near future. He then explained his client would incur additional <br />costs to move the building back the additional 20 feet. Mr. Dzurik noted he drove by Mr. <br />Winiecki’s building to view it for line of sight and stated he felt Mr. Winiecki’s sign draws the <br />attention first and then the building. In his opinion, you may not be able to see the building from <br />the intersection but by the time you reach the access for the proposed building the eye begins to <br />see Mr. Winiecki’s building. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if the developer had explored the possibility of moving the office toward <br />the car wash. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik noted they have not specifically explored that option but certainly could noting they <br />would lose an entire entrance if they did that. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson noted this is an office with employees not a business relying on a customer base <br />as Mr. Winiecki is. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki noted the developer had pushed four feet of fill onto the lot which is why the <br />developer is incurring additional costs to correct the soil. He stated he did not feel this was his <br />problem and that he should not have to pay for it. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson questioned at what point Mr. Winiecki’s building becomes visible when <br />traveling on Highway 10. <br /> <br />Director Ericson gave a line of sight drawing to Chair Stevenson showing a person would be able <br />to see Mr. Winiecki’s building from the Holiday store. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked Mr. Winiecki how far back his building is setback from Highway 10. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki stated his building was setback approximately 75 feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland questioned whether there was an agreement in the original concept plan <br />requiring the building to be setback even with Mr. Winiecki’s building. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.