HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-05-1994 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
• OCTOBER 5, 1994
7:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Review and Approval of Minutes: September 7, 1994 (Received in Previous Packet)
4. Citizens Requests and Comments from the Floor:
CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING PLEASE GIVE YOUR LL NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES
5. Consideration of Resolution No. 402-94 for a Developmen ' iewI ajor
Subdivision/Rezoning, Everest Development, ;,acoc ' , gram A - •e, Planning Case
No. 397-94
• 7. Staff Report
8. Chairman's Report
9. Adjournment
**** * ***\*
• P OUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS ETING IS
EQ 1 ' D. PLEASE NOTI CITY HALL AT 7843055
IF OU ARE UNABLE TO D. THANK YOU.
U\I
•
• MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
DATE: October 3 , 1994
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PLAN/REZONING/MAJOR SUBDIVISION
EVEREST DEVELOPMENT, MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK
As directed by the Commission following discussion at the September
21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, Staff has prepared the
attached Resolution for consideration.
Please note that payment of applicable Park Dedication . Fees is
' addressed in the Resolution. Also, the main entrance drive has
been relocated to the North and is referenced as a revision to the
site plan.
If you have any questions, please call.
•
•
i
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 402-94
111 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONING/DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW/MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF EVEREST DEVELOPMENT,
MOUNDS VIEW BUSINESS PARK EAST 2ND ADDITION,
BUILDING N, PLANNING CASE NO. 397-94
WHEREAS, Everest Development has requested City
approval for a Rezoning, Development Review and Major Subdivision
for their development on the Mounds View Business Park East site;
and
WHEREAS, the proposal is subject to the requirements
contained in Titles 1000, 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
following documents regarding this development proposal:
1. Planning Application dated September 13 , 1994
2 . Site Plan dated August 25, 1994, revised October -
, 1994
3 . Landscape Plan dated August 25, 1994
411 4 . Building Elevations dated August 25, 1994
5. Electrical Site Plan dated August 24, 1994
6. Illumination Distribution Plan dated August 24,
1994
7. Preliminary Grading, Drainage, Utility and Erosion
Control Plan dated August 26, 1994
S. Preliminary Plat of Mounds View Business Park East
2nd Addition, dated August 17, 1994
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that
the proposal is in conformance with all applicable requirements
of the Mounds View Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning,
Development Review and Major Subdivision request of Everest
Development contingent upon the following:
1) Applicable Park Dedication Fees for the Major
Subdivision are paid per Title 1200 of the Mounds
View Municipal Code.
2) The curb cut providing access to Program Avenue and
servicing the Southeast exposure of the proposed
building shall be relocated to the North to improve
• sight lines for vehicles entering and exiting the
property.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
Resolution No. 402-94
Page Two
411
directs Staff to forward this resolution to the City Council
prior to approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 5th day of October, 1994.
ATTEST:
Chairman
(SEAL)
Community Development Coordinator
•
MEMORANDUM
410
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PAUL HARRINGTON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR . A
DATE: October 3 , 1994
SUBJECT: VARIANCE, 2147 PINEWOOD DRIVE
LARRY KLEMZ, PLANNING CASE NO. 396-94
Following discussion of this Variance request at the September 21,
1994 Planning Commission meeting, Staff researched the adoption
date of the ordinance prohibiting two (2) driveways on a single
residential property. The ordinance was passed in late February of
1979 and became effective in late March. The garage on the
applicants property was constructed in the summer of 1978.
Based on this research, it is evident that the garage was in place
prior to the adoption of the ordinance prohibiting second drives
and, therefore, access to that garage (which is assumed to have
been made at the time of construction) is grandfathered.
This case has been reviewed with the City Attorney and he concurs
with Staff's interpretation of the facts.