Minutes - 2001/03/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council March 26, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mayor Sonterre asked Director Ericson to explain why the Planning Commission had not taken action on the matter. Director Ericson explained the school district was invited to attend both hearings at the Planning Commission but did not do so. He then explained the Planning and Zoning Commission feels it needs input from the school district before acting. Mayor Sonterre asked if Director Ericson had requested the school be at the next Planning Commission meeting. Director Ericson noted he had asked for a representative at the next meeting but noted he had asked for a representative at the previous meeting and was assured there would be one in attendance and there was not. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. . MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Continue the Public Hearing to the Next Council Meeting. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 5541, a Resolution Approving a i Development Review fora 16,912 Square Foot Office Building at 2720 Highway 10. Community Development Director Ericson noted this request is before Council for development review of a 16,912 square foot building on Highway 10 south of the Holiday station. The Planning Commission has reviewed this matter at three meetings and there is a representative from the developer and the Minnesota Institute of Public Health present to answer questions. Director Ericson outlined the issues pertaining to the development review and pointed out the main issue is Mr. Winiecki's concern for the setback of the building. Director Ericson explained the developer had compromised by bringing the building back twenty feet for a total of fifty feet. Director Ericson explained Mr. Winiecki had indicated that a previous Council had assured him any building built on that site would be setback even with his building. Director Ericson indicated he had gone through two years worth of minutes and did not find anything to indicate there was an agreement for the setback. Director Ericson explained the reason the developer is before Council is they are seeking approval for something different than what the concept plan showed. Mr. Winiecki has requested the building be setback to match his building. The developer and Minnesota Institute of Public Health say that it is not feasible to move the building back due to the added expenses • they would incur.