Minutes - 2006/02/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council February 27, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 Ma or M closed the ublic hearin at 7:10 .m. Y ~3' p g p MOTION/SECOND: GUNN/STIGNEY. To waive the reading and adopt Resolution 6734 Approving an Amendment to the Belting Office PUD. Councilmember Thomas stated she is in favor of going ahead with the site; however, she stated she had some frustrations as to what will happen in the future because nothing is recommended. She stated the Council is well aware of what has happened in strictly office facilities where the parking has become a problem when users change. She stated that applying a variance here that allows no flexibility in the future is a problem, and is not addressed with this situation. She commented that the variance does not help if it is a problem in future, and thought the City had discussed having that exploration taken place. She stressed she does not expect the Belting site to have a problem, but the future use could be a problem. Councilmember Flaherty echoed Councilmember Thomas' comments, and does not believe there will be an issue with the Belting site, but questions the future. He stated he would like to see the Resolution tied to ownership to Dr. Belting specific, and the issue could be readdressed if there is a change of ownership in the future. Director Ericson stated the Council and Staff certainly would recommend this, but the Council has the ability to bring back for consideration any conditional use permit or PUD if there is something that is not functioning the way it should. Director Ericson stated the situation will be monitored over time, and since the City's property is adjacent to the north, the City will be paying attention to any parking problems, as would Walgreens. He stressed the City is adequately protected and can bring back the Resolution at any point if there are problems. Councilmember Thomas stated she would be comfortable if there was an amendment to the language that provides a clear statement that approval is contingent should there be any issue in the future with inadequate parking regardless of owner. Councilmember Thomas offered a friendly amendment to add language indicating: "the PUD approval is contingent should there be any issue in the future with inadequate parking regardless of owner." Councilmembers Gunn and Stigney accepted this friendly amendment. Councilmember Stigney asked City Attorney Riggs if this amendment could be added. City Attorney Riggs responded that Councilmember Thomas' comments could be put into the words of the Resolution. Councilmember Thomas asked if this amendment would be attached to the PUD variance approval. City Attorney Riggs stated it is and would be able to be revisited if the condition is not satisfied.