My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-07-2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
06-07-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 8:30:27 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:30:07 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.
/
37
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 June 7, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> <br /> <br />Planning and Land Use seminar, where he discovered that according to the Supreme Court, if a <br />property is zoned for a specific use, and the developer meets all of the requirements, the City <br />may not disallow the use on the basis that there are too many other similar uses in the area. He <br />advised that this would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Commercial Code, <br />therefore, if a proposal meets all of the specifications, and the zoning is in place, they must be <br />allowed to proceed. <br /> <br />Barry Peterson, Edgewood Drive stated that he understood this as it applies to private property, <br />however, the subject property is public land. Commissioner Johnson advised that at this time, <br />the land is privately owned. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that the Midland Videen land is privately owned, however, the small pond <br />was City owned, and this parcel was necessary in order for this proposal to proceed. He inquired <br />if the development could occur without the City’s parcel of land. Commissioner Johnson stated <br />that it could, however, it would be in closer proximity to some of the residents, and they would <br />loose access to all of the woods. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that he was not opposed to this proposal, however, had some questions and <br />concerns. He requested clarification regarding the impact to the traffic in the area. He stated <br />that the proposed location of the loading docks, as represented on the site plan, did not appear to <br />be appropriate or particularly attractive. <br /> <br />Mr. Cunningham stated that no loading docks were proposed. He explained that the site plan <br />depicted an enclosed trash compactor and an overhead door facing northeast, which would be <br />most visible from the Culver’s Restaurant. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson inquired if the entrance for both buildings would be taken off of Edgewood Drive. <br />Mr. Cunningham indicated there would be a shared entrance for both the Culver’s Restaurant <br />and Walgreens. <br /> <br />Mr. Peterson stated that this would significantly affect the levels of traffic in the area. He stated <br />that the Theater Project Planned Unit Development had undergone many changes, and it was <br />difficult to recollect all of the things that occurred, however, the residents were ultimately <br />informed that this was just a “bitter pill” that they would have to swallow. He stated that he did <br />not desire to come to a point in this process where it is just another “bitter pill” that they must <br />swallow because the project was so far along, and he would like to know these things in <br />advance. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated that the “bitter pill” in this situation would be the Midland Videen <br />lot, which is currently zoned B-3, and as Commissioner Kaden had stated, if someone came in <br />with a proposal to develop the 3.5 acres of developable land and could meet all of the <br />requirements, the City could not stop them. He added that with this proposal, the City would <br />maintain control over the development process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.