The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-04-04 PC Minutes PROCEEDZNGS ON THE PLANNING COMMIS3ION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ~,~~~~ ~~ Qu -` ~ RAMSEY COllNTY, MINNESOTA ~ ri1 4, 1984 ; Re ular MaeCin 5V L Moi:nds View City Hal.l 2401 flwy. 10, Mounde View, MN 55112 -------~----~------~--------^-~--------------°--------~---------------° The Mounda V.iew Planning Commiseion waa called to 1. Call to Order order b,y Chairman Muuntin at 7:30 PM on April 4, 1984. MEMSERS PRESENT: Cnmmi.r~sionerH Forslund, Sargent, 2. Roll Call n ary~~n, auterbach, Mi.l.ler, .Tohosan, Qu;ek end Chaizmatt MovnCin. ALSO PRESENT; Publi.c tVorks/Community Development rect~r T atcher and Councilmember Blanchard. It was ttoted Councilmember Warren was abaent due eu i7.lnesa. Mnr.ion Second: Sergent/Anderaon to approve the Msrch 3. Approval of , m nutes ae preaented. Minuees~. 0 ayas 0 neya March 7';'1984 Motion Carried There were no rasidente xequeats or commente f+;om 4, Reeidente the floor. Aeqneete and' Comments from the Floor DirecC~r Thar.cher reported Pfr. Uber has conCactr,d 5. Jim Ubex the City, questioning why hie praperL•y iu anned R-Z Pruperty as ehe neighboring property ia R-2, and he does hsve a duplex on hia properey. Director Thatchex exylainad Staff. ia checking to see i£ the ~:roperty wae ever zoned R-2, and what the hiatory ie. He added tha*_ Mr. Uber vrould like to aee hie zoned R-2, and noted that if it remaina k-1, the duplexee would be a non- conforming uee. It was agreed to have Mr. Uber come in to the next agenda aesaion, and continue the diecussion until . then, , 1 ~ It wae noted there was no one prasent to represent• 6. Gale/YoeC hr~/ Che Ga1e/Yoet addition, Addition ~ ,;,.. , __ . . , ._ ~.:. ..., . . . .. Maun6e Visw Planning Commieeion April 4, 1964 Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------- Page Two --~---------_.... ~ Direceor Thatcher reported the Council had lookad at I ; the plans for the Gale/YoeC ~3dition at their agenda seeeion and did not have any probieuie witl~ it, tta addad the Fire Chiaf hae approved tha cul-de-eac radius, with e 5' vaxiance being requixed. ~iC~ The Coamineioners reviewad propoaed Raeolution No. I04-84, and noted that the garage and ahed removal '"~ ehauld bn added, along wiCh the 5' variance for "' ~ aide yard eeeback, and 25' eotback, ae well ae the ~ eaoamente deecribed. ~ ~~„ The Cnmmieaionere queetioned if a hardehip etstement , M ~ waa dieauusad by the applicant. Director thntcher ~ ..+°""1 explained that without the variancea, tha lote would ~,,,.r~ have to be emallar, and therefora would not meet s'~ r"`K r the lot eiz~ requiremenCe, Ha added the harcdAhip l d d i h h i ~ q ~`, e var ances. t k etatewent ehould be inc u e w ~ Chairman Mountin aleo noted the ~:ity gave the ease- ~ ment up on Ardan Avenue, whieh pzeclu3ed any oii,er dewel~pment arrangement. Motlon Second: Andexean/Miller to adapt Reoolution f~To~ zecommending approval of the Gale/Yost ~ addition. ~~`..- 8 aqas 0 nays ti~tion Csrri~d Bob Balr.h iatroduced himeelf ae representing Lhe 7. Pinecrest oxmer of the praparty, along with Dan Boxrud, Properties o€ Shnrt-Elliot-Hendrickeon, Davelopment Director ThaCCher made a preaentation of the pro- posed develoFment, and reviewed the discuesion that had taken place ~st the laet agende aeasion, with the major isaue being whether eo rezone certain parcels to I-1. Mr. Boxrud made a presentacion of the proposed development, showing the areas they would like rezoned to I-1. He explained that if the property rr.maine R-3, Raymond Avenue would have to go all the way through to County Road H2, whereae if it is rezoned to I-1, there would be no cut through to Fi-2. He added they feel there ia very good expoaure to the property, due to the location of 35W ancl tlighway 10, that it would be best sui.ted for induetrial and co~ercial, which would not generate the heavy traffic tha.t an ~ R-3 development wauld. Moundn Viaw Planning Commieaion April 4, 1984 Regular Meat~n~ Page Thxee ------~---------------------------~----•-^-~------°-----------~------- ~ Chairman Mountin noted L•h1a particular piece of property hae bman before the Planning Co~nieeion and City Council ~, eaveral rimea in the paee few yeare, and they have seen many changae with the propoeals, based on the input ths City hae given the daveloper, She noted the residents of the area have clearly indicated thay do noC want any additional apartmenta Cltere, acroae from their R-1 homes. She alan noted that the developer ie once again atarting over with a new plan for the area, It wae noted that in the past, the Planning Coumnisaion has cottsidexed the option of not rezoning property until 1t wae knacm what the pxoparty would be used far. The Comprehenei.ve Plan, coneidering the lay of the 1and, has indicated that an induetrial uae caould be quite we11 buf.fered and auiea6le Lor r.he area. The Co¢uniseionere agreed tfiey would like to work out the beat compromiae. Charlea MiAler, Councy ftos~l H2 >n4 °~;^.r.^nd, ntat.ed he liveR directly acroes from the pruposed developmant, end if the Craffi,c would be kept ofE County Road H2, and the area would have a buffer zone, as planned, he would be in agreement with an in3uetrial/commeraial development. He added he definieely did not want apartsent bvi.~,dinge put in there. ~^~ Mr. BaLch etated he has had callr~ from truckars ~ ~ ~,.,-' recenCLy, inCeres;:ed in going in that area, and he has informad them he did not believe the City would ailow them in thst axea, under a conditional uae pe~mit. Mrs. Miller atated that when apartmenl•a were proposed eaxlier, the quzstion of storm sewers came up, and sl~e asked who would pay for rhem nnw. Mr. Boxrud repliej tAe only thing being requested notr ie an induatrial rezoning, with all drainage going south, and the developer does uot exper.t any of the reaidenta north to pay for ie. He added the dr~inage plan i.a curxently under review, and they wLll nut know the impact for a few more weeks. Mrs. Miller stated ehe would appreciate having the berming done in a timely manner, to cut down on blowing sand and debrie from the conetruction aite. Mr, Balch replied they would agree to that. Discussion took place among the Cou~isaioners, with questions being raised a~ to when Raytnand Avenue is put in, if the fl.re lane will Ao through the ~ berm, what type o£ shrubs will be placed on top of the ~• berm, and what impact the lighting and noiae will have. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ Mr, Boxrud explained the fire lane would go through the Mounda Viaw Planning Commiesion Apr31 4, 1984 Regular Meeting Page Four -^----^-------------------------------------------------------~------- ~/!i~ berm, with e knock-down gate. Na added ehe ehrube f j wauld be worked out with the City nngineer, ae to what " would ba moet euitable, and that a11 outdour lighting would be hoodad, ae requirad by code, and the ph,yeical barr~er ehauld eliminate the noisa problem. Chuirman Mountin reco~nanded Che Co¢m~iaeion eak £or a landecaping plan to be eubmiCted and Uecome part of tha development agreement, 9he added that tentatively, the P2anning Commieeion would not be seeing a Pinal plat, snd recommended that the buffar zone be daecribed, and the landecaping pZan ba eFprovod and atit:ached to the pr~apo~sZ, and r.e~ui~s that the buffsr be s toGnl. vinual berrier, Mr. Bor.rud noted that no platting ie being requested at thia time. He also pointed out th~i: the 50-60' measvrement for zhe buf£er zone wae taken by Staff from eaaling a drawing, and he will work with the City Engineer zo get the exact moaaurr.ment.5, which he bElievea axa clooer. to 40', Director Thatchar recomnendad the berm±ng ehould be one of Che firat thinga the developar daes, with it bel.ng a tatal vieual barrier uein$ evergreen shrubs. f^. H~ nl~o r.oted they eh~uld be careful n~t to make it ton high. ~; The Coumiesioners were polled for their opinions, with Co~2esioners Quick, Johneon, Miller, Lauterbach, Anderaon ^nd Mountin bein~ in favnr of. tha psoposal, as long as the propar berming craa put in right away, with some type of grc~und cov~ring anfl vegetation. Courmisaioners Sargent and Forlaun~] were not in favor oi the proposal, ae they did not rxieh to rezone the property, with Co~isaioner Sargent stating they shcu2d stay with the Comp Plan, and he woUld pr.efer going to R-4 rather than I-1, ae he felt that change wna too drast:ic. Commieainner Foralund atated the Planning Co~ieaion is noC in the habit of rezoning unlese they know what they are rezoning for. She ataeed xhe could go alon~ with the publia improve- ments and roadways ae a start, but would 11ke to know what is going to be put in, She also atated she was concerned with going .from R-3 to I-1. ChaLrman Mountin reviewed the optiona available to the Commiseionere, to either recommend app.roval with the cequeated rezcning, recou~end approval without ehe requeated rezoning, to require a landsaaping ~""`y plan be submitted to the Council, along with the ~;~ Commisaion:~ recommendation, and to rr,.co~nend phaeing of the development, with berming to be part ok Phase I. ~ ~~~ ~ r'~ ~"~;+~ ~~,.., ~ ~"'i~ ,l ~~ Mounda View Planning Cormniseion April 4, 1984 Regular Meeting Page Five -----°----^---^--~--°---~-------------------------------------^------- .~.~ Chalrman Mountln reviewnd the requiramante of a t i aonditional uee permit, and what would be alloweble in the area. Motion Second: Quick/Lautezbach to adopt ReeoluCion oR-. , racouuuending approva7. of the Pinecreet Paric development propaeal, including rezoning B-3 and R-4 to I-1, and including ehe landecaping plan to be eubmittad to tha Cuuncil, along with the details of the ground cover, 5 ayse 3 naye Commiseionare Forelund, Sargent and Miller voted againet the motion. Couunisaioner Foralund etated ahe had voted ggainet it ae ehe did noC wanr. to rezone tho proparty without know~ing what wae going in. Commiesioner Sargent sCated he had voted against th~ mation eta it crae a more drael•ic z~ning that had been done before and he d3d noL want to seC a pr.ecedettce. Commisaioner Miller atated ehe voted against.the motion ae aha did not want to see the rezoning eied in caith tlie rest of tha resoluCion. ~-~ Mre. Miller quest+_oned who will maintain the berming, and wha*~ controls they will have ~vex e.~haC io upprovr_d ~.-' to be built in the area. She atated again ehe would pre£er to see the light industrial over apartments. Cheiz~nan Mountin replied the develaper would be reaponeible for mainCaining the berm, and ahe reviewed the allowed uses in an I-1 zone. Director Thatcher advised the pro~ect will be reviewed at the April 16 Council agenda sessi.on, Mr. Belch thanked the Planning Commiaeion, on bahalf o£ Mr. Beim and himself. Director Thatch~r reviewed the propoaed resoluti.an, based on the direction received from the Planning Co~niesion at their ].ast agenda session. Mr. Povlitski pret~ented a drawing, ehowing the ad3itional parking planned. Motton Second: Noralund/Lauterbach to adopt esn ut on o. 106-84, reaommending approval of the requeat ~.f Povlitaki's Off-10 far a Walleyball ~ Court. 8 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried 8. Yovlitaki's 0£f-1Q Walley- be.ll Developme~ Review Motian Car.ri~ed Director Thatch~r advised the Council w~uld diecues t.he request at Y.heir April 16 agenda seaeion. Mounds View Planning Co~iseion Apri1 4, 1984 Regular Meeting Page 5ix ,r~ DireeCOr Thatcher reported he wili have a draft reso- 9~ Action Ytemes ~ j lution pr.eparad for eha next ager.da eeeaion, regarding Overnight Park- •° ovarnight paxking. ing, LoC Frontage/PUD He aleo advised that the lat frontage/PUD diecuesion Diecuseion will remain on ehe aganda, until the Planning Commiseion hae an opportunity to diecuee it, Director Thatcher advised the money had been budgetod to purchase two tickete for the APA conL•erence, which will be hald in Minneapolls, from May 5-9. He addec tha regintration deadline ia Apr1.1 8, r~~id he has requestad a achedule of diaoueaione and events. The Planning Commiseion directed Stnff to purchase two ticketa to the APA confezence, with a echedule Cu be ast at thc next agenda sesaion, of who would attend which aeseionA. Yt aras also agreed that Lhe meabars ehould maY.e a br.ie£ prasentation to the raet ~f the Commieeion, of the sessiona Chey attend, so ae to ahare the inforciation received. Director Thatcher reported e new report has been ~'~, prepared, and Staff is in the proceas of compsx2ng i the rtew report to the old, and will copy any changea ~--~ made, attd dietribute to the Co~iaeion. Councilmember Blanchard reported the Council has not takan action on anything lately that direcCly eEfecta the Planning Commieaion. She added they are ataying on cop of the airport situation. Director Thatcher reported the Council has requested that aomeone from the Yla:ining Commission be preaent at the controversial rezoning nearinga the Council has ecUeduled for May 14 and 28, an3 June 11 and 2S, ae an advocete for the City's poaition, to provide a t~etter background. He eta.ted he would pxovide ~he Go~iasianero o£ a schedule of. the hearinge. Councilmember Blanchard explained that the Council is not aaking them to defend t:heir deciaion but rather to help anetaer queetione and provide a hietory of the property involved. Chairman Mountin advised the Planning Cov~iseion ahould have a sl•aCement prepared regarding the Comp Plan and why the Planning Commisaion is ', recommending the rezoning, and have a history ~j prepared to discuse at the next agenda eession. 10. APA Conference 11 '~ f~ , ''~r ~ ~~ ; ' d ~"~~ , ~ Local and ~ Reg~onal Plannin~ Report ' 12. Diecusa Faet Council Action and Next Agenda Counsilmember Blanchard also advioed that any rezoning that gets too hot will be Labled Eor two weeks. Mounde View Plenning Commieeion Aprii 4, 1484 Regular MeeCing ?aga Seven ----~-----------------°----------------------------------- -~--------- ~-~ Director Thatcher raportud the Chrietopher Compeniee ( i reeolution hae been revisod, wiCh new copiea to be eubmitted to ehe Planning Comm~~eion. ~ The Cou~ieeionere requeeted that Btaff go back to r~,~ ueing the "3ta£f Report" form in preparing devalop- `,~(~~ ment propoeale, ae we11 as lieting the caea number ~ on all paperwork~ They aleo aeked that material be i~,+^~ three-hole punck~ed before it ie handed out, ~~~ Councilmambar Slanchaxd reported the New IIrighton '~~ Es~1l~tin hae changed publicati~n datee, which may eF£set public hearing datea, ~ Chairman Mountin reported the attendee.s at the 13. Chairman'e Masch aganda seseion were Commiesiottere Warren, Report Forslund, 3axgent, Anderson, Quick, Johnson, Millar and Lautaxhach, Director Thatcher attd Cauncilmamber Blanr.hard. 3`he tlanning Cow~tiesion askad that the liet of residenta Erom tha agenda seeeion, regarding the libar property, be aCtached to the minutea. ~; ll:.rector Thatcher had no report. 14, 3taff Report , w Motien Secand: Lauterbach/Miller to ad~ourn the I5. AdJournment meet~ teg a :20 PM. 8 ayea 0 nays Motion ¢arriad Re~tfully aubud.-~ Y~ , Steven Thatcher. Public Worka/Conmunity Aevelopment Director ' ~ i ,, ~ r ~ _ ,.,,., _, ,:_~. .. . ._.. , ,. if _ ., ~ __. ~,< , . ~ . „ ~ wt^, ~..i .i..~, MOUNU5 VIF,'W PLANNTNG CQMMT9810N RReOLUTtON NO. 1Q4-d4 Cl'CY Ol~ MUUNbS VIRW /^~ COUNTY OF RAMSEY ~ ~ BTATE OF MINNE3pTA RECUMMENbATION TO THF, CITY COONCIL REGARDTNG GA4C/YUST AD~I'P10N, 8205 LAPOR'f DRIVF'., CABF, 149-84 WH~'REAS, the developer ia propoaing a major aubdiviaion coneiatiny aE L•hro~ loCs; and WHEREA3, the City, to date, has received a patitiol~ Eor the publio improvument ?nd a Eenaihility study has be submitt.ed; WFIBREAS, tho hardehip juetifical•ion Eor the project Sa the Clty's closing oE the easement on Ardan Avenue which made other lot devalopmont not practical~ NOW, THfiI~EEqRG, BE IT RF.SOLVBD that tha Mounds View Planning Cominiesion ~ ar,ommend ro k1~e Ci.ty Counci.l khc~t a devc~lopment agreemont be entered into between the City oE Flound~s Viax and kho d~valcpars, Susan Gala and uabra Yost, whtch include the Eollowing provisionss a. exhibita 1) site grading and utility plan 2) aite development and landscape plan ~'~ 3) site survey 4i easomant map and legal description Eor '' ~ required storage pond (ordinance No. 49A) . ~. 5) legal description 6) Ordinance~ No. 49H soven year. percormance bond of S1,oo0.00 7) buildlnq plans and specificationa 8) 10'foot wide Eoot path ea~ement b. Security for the development in an amount to ba determined. c. Payment oE all City expenses above and beyond amounts ' praviously aubmited. ' 'd. Other ii:ems as may be requirnd by r.he City Council. e. Variance Eox 50 foot radius~and 25 fo~t setback. P. Removal bf shed an6 garage: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that hhe Mounds View Planning Commission direct staEf to Eoward thie resolution to the City Council prior Co approval oE the minutes. ,..~.,, Adapte9 this 4th day oE April, 1984. V ATTESTt Chairman (SEAL) Directoz of Publ c Worka CommuniCy Developmonk ec:~~::,.,,~. ~ ... .....:....... ,.. ,, . ~ ( % MOUNOS VI~W PLANNINQ COMMI~BION RESOi~UTItlN NO. 106-84 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OP RAMSEY STA'TR Ol~ MINNFhOTA RECOMMFNDATION TO CITY CDUNCII. RFGARDING POVGITSKI~S pFF-ltl WAGLF.YHALL COORT REpUEi3T, 2900 COUNTY ROAD H-2, CASE 151^04 ~ WHEREAB~ Rlchard Povlitelci, owner oE povlikski's OEP-10 ie requesting approvel to inatall a~ indoor volleyball (walleybell) court~ and WHERGAS, the property is presently zoned o-3 Highway C~mmercialJ and WHBREAS, the planning Comminaion finds thah walleyball would ?~e an allowable accessory usey and WHEREAB, the walleybatl c~urt uso would requiro en additiona7. minimum of six parking,spacoat and WHEREAS, the owner ot Povlitaki's OfE-10 intends to close two of his four entrancos to hie property and provide a minimum of ten additional parking spacest and WHEREAS, the closing of two entrancea will not only provids aUditional parking spaces but better scroen tho adjaeent and abutting re~idential propertieai NOW, THERE['ORE, RE I'f RESOLVED that the Mounds View Plenning Commission recommends approval oE ths inscalYation ct tha walleyball cour.t at Povliteki's Off-10 located at• 2400 County Road H-2 and lasuance of the building permit after submittal and approval of the Qlans and spocifications. BE IT FURTHER RESOGVED th~t thu Mounde View Planning Commisaion directe stafE ho forward this reaolutSon to the City Council prior to appr.ovel of the minutes. Adopted ttita 4th day of April, 1984. ~ ATT~STs C a rman - (SEAL) D rector o Pu r, or a Community Development , _ _ ...,,. , ,_ . ~.u_,~ ~ ~ ~st,. ~r MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CUMMIyBIDN RrSOLUTiON NO. 107-A4 '~.. CI1'Y OF' MOUNDS VIMW COUNTY OF RAM9F.Y STATE OF MINNR80TA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPRQVAL Ok TIi~ PINF.CRE9T PARK DEVELOPMENT PROP08AL TO TH~ MOUNDS VI~W CITY COUNCIL LAND LQCA'CL'U N.E. OF HIGI~WAY 10 AND 80UTH OF COUNTY ROAD N-2~ CA5C 150-84 WHGREAS, the applicantr Pinecre~st Proporties, lias requestod the Eollow3nyr 1. Rededtcation of Raymond Avenue. 2. Potitlon far publlc improvements Eor Raymond Avenus. 3, Rezone Erom B-3 and R-4 to Induetrial the following lots aE the plat Pinecreat Addi.tion: Lot 1, 81ock 1' Lot 3, Ulock 1 Lot 1, 81ock ~ Lnt 2, elock 2 ~ 4, bedication oE street rlght-of-way addition anrl full median cross-over. to Trunk Hi~hway 10 between propiisod Raymohd Avenue and County Road I1-27 and WHER~rt3, the rededication of Raymond Avenue and atreet right-o[-way additinn togothor wiCh the F.ull median cross-over on Trunk H{ghwaf 10 will be an adequate stroet pl.an to provi:le baeic acceae to the Qroposed developmenti and wHEREAS, the petition of public improvemente ts 100 oercenti and nacesa~ry for developmenti and WHBREA9, the rezonings requested are in compliahce with the Compr.ehenaive Plan direction Eor M ekricC 2i and WHBREAS, the applicent hae proposed a mininium 40 fuot screening and buEEer area along CoUnty Road H-2j and WHER~AS, thn applicanN hae propoaed a r.ul-de-sac at the nazth end oE Raymond Avonue with an ernorgency accass only from County Road H-2 to aliminate e traEfic impect to the northern ro~idenkial arear and WHER~AB, the lots within th~ propoaed Qevelopment all moeC minim~~m area requir.em~nts~ ~ NOW, THERBFORE, BE IT REBOLVED that f:ho Mounds View Planning Commiselon recommends approval oE the applicant's request as atahed ebova in itema 1, 2, 3 and 4t ..,.,,, ,,. Resolution Nu. 107-84 Page Two oE Two ~ BF IT FURTH~R RF.SOLVRD~ that the Mounde View Plaaning Commiesion recoiunende that tha develqper eubmit a berm, landscapi:tg, and eighh plan to tha City Council Eor their approvsl inaluding conatruotion timc+ table, qrounA covet (sod, waod chips, ehc.1, shrubery and evargreen trees. The Planning Commiseion recommende conetruction of borm/landecaping at tho same time as street consrruckion. Tho Planning Commiosion aiso recommends that the developer and eubsequent ownere mainkein the properry (ineluding barml guaranteed by a bond. The developmonh ageeement ahnuld address noiae and dust control~ B~ IT FURTHER RESOLVED thnt tlie t4ounda Viow Planning CammLseion recommehde extending the area of public notice for 0he hearing to includa L•he property,within 90~ Ceet norY.h of tho developmentt BB IT FURTHER RESOLVGD that the Mounds View Planning Commiaeion elso rocommends approvel of the Haymond Avenue oul-de-e~nu for emorgoncy access Erom County Roed H and a mininum 40 Eaot ~uffer/ecrsening ur.oa along County Road H-2 ax ehown on the site plan recoived by Mounda View on Marr.h,7, 1984, attached hereto. y,~ DE IT FURTHER R~SOLVF.D thak the Mounde View Planning .. ._., ~ Commission direu6 ataff to foec~ard thie resolukion to Cha,City . Council prior to approval oE the minutear Adopted Ehis 4th day oE April, 1984. ATTESTt ~' ; . ~' ' ,.. ~ ' ~ . .. . , ... ,,.~, . ' ~ ~~,. .. . ~. ~: ~,, ~C~Ctlldp~, . . (SBA4) , ~~ i 1., . ~. ' ~ ~~ .. ~ ' ` , ,_ , D reator o Pu6I c Wor f} Qommun~tY Development .~ ,r~./ t , , :......... ..:;_~.,.~....,.~ ., , ,.,.,. ..~._ ~ .,.:,, . ....~.~.i,.,: r, ...~._~. ~. ,~.:~,r..,.. ~,. , ~ , ..~.~cv.. M.;:a,.:.~,. .. ...,.~ , MOUNpB VIEW PLANNINd COMMI9SION RE90LUTI0N N0. 110-84 ~ CITY OP MOUNOS VSBW ~ COUNTI OF RAM9EY ~. 9TATE OF MINNE90TA RE3tlLUTTON RECOMMENDING APPROVA4 OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL OF ~AY WEST, INC., P4ANNTNO CASE 15d-84 WHEREAB~ Bay West, Ina, has requested to build a 10~100 aquare foot oEfice/warohouse building~ and WHEREA3, Mounde View Code Section 59.07 requires development review of eucli propoealst and WHEREAB, the applicant, Hay West, Inc., has submittod a oite plan and floor planJ and WNBREAS, the aite pl~n and f2oor plan meet minimum Code requirementaj and WHEREAS, the propoeed uao !e also in c~mpliance with the axiatiny zuning and Compreheneive Plan designutian~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounda View - Planning Commieeion recommenda approval of the proposal with the folluwtng condition~s ~. • 1) 8-6-18 curbing tre usad for pmrking araas and aruas needing drainage control. 2) That'~he applicant agree to pave Mustar+g Lane at,a ~ Euture tine ae an emergency eecondary entrance for the i.nduetrlal park. 3) Exhibits for the dovelopment agreement includes a. Site bond b. Plane and specifications a. Bite Plan and landscaping plan d, Chapter 49A dralnage zequirementa e. Chaptor 49A aecuriiy E. Exhibit A L•o include iter~~ 1 and 2 abo+~e g. Rice Creeh WaY.erehed Diatrict appraval BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounda~ View Planning Commisaion direct etaff to forward this resolution to the City Counctl prlor to a~proval of the minutee. Adopted this 6th day of June, 1984. ATTEBTs ~ C a rmen (SEAL) D rector o Pu c Wor s Communiky Development