Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. William Elfman stated he felt people do know the building by description. He then stated <br />that allowing the proposed building to be built in front of Mr. Winiecki’s building would be <br />“taking the view” out of Mounds View and he stated he did not think the Commission should do <br />that. <br /> <br />Mr. Jeff Dzurik of McGough Construction noted the visibility issue was addressed in Mr. <br />Ericson’s reports to the Commission. He stated the PUD and the Resolution are clear on the <br />requirements and the building as proposed meets those requirements. He noted the developer <br />has gone one step farther by moving the building back an additional twenty feet. He then <br />respectfully asked that the Resolution be approved. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked what the distance between the two buildings was. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik stated he was not sure how far Mr. Winiecki’s building was from property line but <br />noted the MIPH building would be forty-four feet from the property line. He then stated that he <br />had considered the request from the last meeting to flip flop the building on the site and found <br />that there is a drainage and utility easement located in the area where the building would need to <br />be. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson noted the buildings, road and easements all run at an angle. He then asked if the <br />MIPH building would sit perpendicular to County Highway 10. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik indicated it would. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki questioned where the utility and drainage easement was. <br /> <br />Director Ericson clarified a building cannot be built over the drainage and utility easement. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki inquired as to why it was not possible to move the building back. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik stated he would have to put in a ten-foot retaining wall that would be quite costly. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki stated the original concept plan indicated it was feasible to set the building back <br />farther on the lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik clarified that was a concept and that now there is an actual client with actual money. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson suggested moving the building to the northwest would gain line of sight <br />for Mr. Winiecki. <br /> <br />Mr. Dzurik stated there is no room to move the building west without also pushing the building <br />back. <br /> <br />Mr. Winiecki questioned whether economic hardship was a valid reason to move the building <br />forward.