My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-06-2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
09-06-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 8:32:17 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:32:07 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.
/
23
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 September 6, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br /> <br />Tony Mezzenga said that they originally were requesting 3,800 square feet. He said he feels the <br />square footage of the building he has proposed is reasonable and needed to cater to a wider <br />variety of possible tenants and in order to ensure that the building is leased out. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked Mr. Mezzenga how he felt about the parking issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga indicated that he feels that there is wasted space and with an office building this <br />small the businesses that rent space will be small with few employees and clients. He envisioned <br />the building to be more of a “store front” for an insurance agent or someone who is at the office <br />sometimes but not all the time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked how many tenants the developer is planning to accommodate in <br />the space. <br /> <br />Mr. Mezzenga indicated four tenants each using 800 or 700 square feet would basically be two <br />employees per offices. Mr. Mezzenga said it would be hard for him to go with less square <br />footage. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson asked the Planning Commission if they would like to have more <br />information or if they were ready to make a motion on the resolution. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked if there was another way to configure the parking lot. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that he, the owner, and the developer had spent a lot of time trying to <br />reconfigure the parking lot and found there is no way to reconfigure the parking lot without <br />encroaching into the setbacks. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked for clarification on the setback if it was from the sidewalk or from <br />the street. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that the sidewalk is included in the County right-of-way and the <br />setback is from the property line, not the sidewalk. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated that there is a 20-foot driveway listed and that would provide for <br />one car exiting and one car entering. He indicated that graffiti is a growing issue throughout the <br />City and the Police Department should be involved in resolving that problem. Chairperson <br />Peterson said he feels that if the lot is improved, there will be fewer people congregating and <br />causing trouble and litter problems. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that there is too much parking according to the developer. He <br />indicated that the City tries to plan for the worst case and the most cars that could possibly be <br />there at one time. He said they recently gave a manufacturing company a variance for one space <br />for 250 square feet. He said that in his opinion there isn’t a need for that much parking space <br />because such a small office building would not generate that much traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland inquired as to other cities requirements for different types of commercial <br />uses.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.