Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission July 25, 2007 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />irector Ericson replied that is true, the Church is a non-taxable entity. He stated that given the <br />had <br /> sell property during hard times in the 1970’s. He stated this is an opportunity to buy back <br />some property. <br /> <br /> <br />d any building or improvement to the lot would be assessed in the future if <br />e to do the park <br /> stated park dedication fees are triggered by a subdivision. He stated if there <br />ND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Cramblit, to approve Resolution No. <br />D <br />lot could not be built upon it would be taxed accordingly. <br /> <br />Mr. Pete Sargent, 2268 Knoll Drive and also representing the church, mentioned the Church <br />to <br />Commissioner Gunn stated her issue with the park dedication fee is that nothing is being built on <br />the lot; the church is simply dividing the property. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated park dedication fees are placed on commercial or residential <br />development. <br /> <br />r. Sargent stateM <br />development occurs. He asked that park dedication fees be imposed at that time rather than now. <br /> <br />hair Stevenson asked if development happened, would that be the proper timC <br />dedication fee. <br /> <br />irector EricsonD <br />were a re-subdivision in the future, a fee would be attached at that time. <br /> <br />he Planning Commission reached consensus to recommend that a park dedication fee not be T <br />imposed. <br /> <br />OTION/SECOM <br />871-07; a Resolution recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat for the Abiding Savior <br />Major Subdivision; Mounds View Planning Case No. MA07-002. <br /> <br />Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />Director Ericson indicated this item would be presented at the August 13, 2007 City Council <br />eeting. M <br /> <br />6. Other Planning Activity <br />Community Development Director Ericson summarized the history of zoning for massage <br />therapy. He stated the reason staff is once again raising this issue for discussion is to resolve the <br />mission made when the ordinance was first adopted to establish appropriate zoning districts <br />h licensed massage therapy businesses might operate. He explained that over the <br />years, the City has received many inquiries from individuals interested in opening a massage <br />therapy business and from residents asking about massage therapy as a home occupation. <br /> <br /> <br />A. Discussion of Allowable Zoning District Locations for Massage Therapy <br /> <br />o <br />within whic