09-21-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 7, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn asked if the sidewalk next to the building would be removed. Mr. Perrozzi replied it would be removed and replaced with landscaping. Commissioner Zwirn stated he is inclined to approve a zero lot line because there would be a wider area for traffic control. He added several community members want to see the property enhanced. The stumbling block has been Velmeir and if Mr. Perrozzi is willing to do this on his own, the Commission should work with him. Commissioner Hull asked if there are retailers waiting to rent the building. Mr. Perrozzi replied there have been inquires but all want the parking lot done first. Chair Stevenson stated he does not see the rationale for a zero lot line. He added lot lines are arbitrary and if there is a few inch mistake there could be problems later. Mr. Perrozzi asked if there is a concern regarding setting precedence. Chair Stevenson replied absolutely. Mr. Perrozzi asked if he presented a zero-foot setback plan developed by a licensed engineer would the Commission be open to this plan. Commissioner Hegland stated he does not see how a zero-foot setback plan would make a difference. Mr. Perrozzi again asked if the opposition to a zero-foot setback is about setting precedence. Commissioner Hegland stated setting precedence is an issue as well as snow removal. Mr. Perrozzi stated the snow would drain into his property. MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/__. To approve Resolution 810-05, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance Request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building; Planning Case No. VR2005-010. Mr. Perrozzi asked if the proposed resolution were passed could the plans be changed later if it was found that he could not work within the confines of the plan. Commissioner Hegland stated an applicant must work within the confines of the resolution, if passed. He added without a presented plan from a licensed engineer that two feet would make a difference; a zero-foot setback cannot be approved. He suggested action be postponed so a plan could be presented. Mr. Perrozzi stated he is looking for flexibility from the Commission. He noted he would prefer not to spend additional dollars on another possible resolution in the future if, after approving tonight’s resolution, he could not work within the confines of the plan. He added if the Commission is not willing to consider a zero-foot setback, presenting another plan would not be worthwhile. No second, motion fails.