Agenda Packets - 1980/03/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Pae2 --g----------------March_lii_1i80 <' Chairperson Mountin noted the memo dated 3/19/80 regarding the proposed Case Review Format. She asked that the Commission consider use of the format. Haakc moved to remove Item #6 from the table. Seconded 6. PRELIMINARY CONCEPT by Burmeister. 7 ayes REViEWAL P.U.D. 0 nays Official Rose introduced the item as an additional step review requested by the Applicant and desired by the City for their proposed P.U.D. development. This step was felt to be advantageous, due to the City's development of a community park and the Applicant's interest in developing an approximate 100 acre parcel. The parcel in question and under review is basicly bounded by Long Lake Road, County Road H2, Silver Lake Road and County Road 1. The City's existing zoning of the area is a combination of R-1, R-2, R-4 and 1-1. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area mixed P.U.D. to include Commercial, Public and Residential. The Applicant, in his letter to you dated 1/9/80, has pro- posed such a sketch proposal. He has also listed five points of concern, which he would like the City to agree with or give him some direction with which he can use to start his P.U.D. process. Staff recommends that you comment on his five points of concern and further, give him direction with regard to any additional specifics you might recommend be incorporated in his P.U.D. planning pr,,cess. This recommendation that the Planning Commission might make does not short-circuit the three step P.U.D. process, but only becomes a vantage point for both the City and the Applicant. The vantage for the City would be to complete the park relocation swap, purchase and dedication process and for the Applicant, the, direction necessary for him to start his P.U.D. process. blazer stated he felt the process was being cut short. Suggested that the Applicant start at the ConcepL Stage of the P.U.D. process. Official Rose assured him that there was no short cut of the P.U.D. process. Park Director Anderson gave a brief overview of hls staff memo dated March 17, 1980. Mr. Anderson stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission had been studying and re- viewing the Silver View Park issue since August, 1976. It was the consensus of the Park Commission that the re- location proposal as presented would be a benefit to botR, the developer and the City. Anderson further stated that the current park proposal was arrived at following 18 months of compromise and negotiation with both the Park