Laserfiche WebLink
Mounde View Planning Commiseion June 1, 1983 <br />' Regulur. Meating Page Three <br />I ---^--~----~-~-°^------°--_°-------~-----~°----^------~-------------- <br />^.adminietrat~ve action, ns Chey would praEer to not <br />hava to grant a vaxiancn. Technician Kampel <br />exp2ained that the reanon it wae brought before <br />L•he Planning Co~iseion wae 6eceuea parta of Che <br />driveway would ba t~ken out complately and replaced, <br />The Plaru~ing Co~iesion etated they felt tha repair <br />and xesurfacing of tha exieting driveway did not <br />require a variance for Che new drivewsy plecement <br />and they directed BtaFf to proceed wirh the permit <br />procaen, and rgcommended the faea be refunded eleo. <br />Motion Second; McCarthy/Andereon to reco~ond to <br />tie ounc t at the fees paid by Mr, Emereon be <br />refunded. <br />6 ayea 0 nays <br />Chairwan Mauatin explained to those pzeeenC thaC <br />the Ylanning Commiasion had esrli.er mada thair <br />recommendation to the Council on the propoeed <br />development, the Council held a public hearing, <br />and in light of'the diecuesion Chat occurred at <br />that public t~eariug, the CaUnr_iI denied thA <br />.--, spplicant's requeat to rezotte the property attd <br />i 1 referred tha matter back L•o Ch~ Planning Con¢nieaion <br />L./ for diacusalon on traneitional zoning to buf£er <br />the R-]. property. <br />Technician KampeI etated he had spoken to C;:~ <br />engineer, Mr. Meimin, and they are in the <br />prncese of submitt3ng a reviaed development propoeal <br />to the City. <br />Clu irman MounCln exnlained the Planr~ing Commisaion <br />ie an advisory board, which raviewe applicatiotta <br />and makea recoam~andationa to the Council. She <br />explained the public hearing process and why it <br />im requixed tu be at th9 Council leve7., and that <br />due to tha commentu made ae the pubLic hearing , <br />the item ie now back before thc Planning Commieaton. <br />NIr. Malmin preeented the Commieeioners with nketchea <br />of their new proposal for the area, and rev3ewed it. <br />He etated they would be willing to dedicate 15' to <br />the City, with high density an the eacl~ and park <br />area to tha weet, but they do not favor a tot lot <br />in the developmant, aa they do not feel anyone will <br />want to aseume tne liability for it. <br />Colleen Olsen, 7641 Edgewood Drive, atated the feel- <br />{J ing is eCill unanimoua with the neighhore, that the <br />new plan ia totally unacceptsbl.e, and it does not <br />deal with the density or eraffic problems. She <br />eteted ahe was given the impreaeion at the Ccuncil <br />Motion Carrie6 <br />9. Leonard Babinaki <br />Subdiviaion/ <br />Rezoning Diac. <br />Case 128-83 <br />