Laserfiche WebLink
= Agenda Section: 8.c, 7: 10 <br /> ........ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONnior <br /> Report Number. 93-626C <br /> Report Date: 9-23-93 <br /> STAFF' REPORT Council Action: <br /> "� 0 Special Order of Business <br /> rry COUNCIL MEETING DATE September 27, 1993 M Public Hearings <br /> / 0 Consent Agenda <br /> 0 Council Business <br /> Item Description: Consideration of Request for Conditional Use Permit, Gateway Foods, 2390 Highway <br /> 10, Planning Case No. 362-93, Resolution No. 4422 <br /> Administrator's Review/Recommendation: <br /> - No comments to supplement this report <br /> - Comments attached. <br /> Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets necessary.) <br /> STIMMARY; <br /> In May of this year, Gateway Foods, representing Brooks Market - 2390 <br /> Highway 10, made application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an <br /> automated car wash to be placed on the Brooks property. That application, <br /> as originally submitted, also requested the granting of a variance to allow <br /> the car wash facility to be located within the required rear yard setback. <br /> The Mounds View Planning Commission, after review of the proposal at their <br /> May and June Agenda Sessions, denied the request for variance. <br /> Specifically, in Resolution No. 363-93, the Commission cited the lack of <br /> a demonstrated hardship on the property; a current, reasonable use of the <br /> property; the lack of the request being unique to this property; and, the <br /> need being self created as reasons for denial. Following the Planning I <br /> Commissions' decision, the applicant, as allowed by Municipal Code, <br /> appealed their decision to the City Council level. The Mounds View City <br /> Council, at their July 12, 1993 meeting, concurred with the findings of the <br /> Planning Commission and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution denying the <br /> appeal. Prior to that Resolution being acted upon, the applicant submitted <br /> an alternative site plan for consideration. Because no official action was <br /> ever taken on the Conditional Use Permit, the Council referred the <br /> alternative site plan back to the Planning Commission level for <br /> reconsideration. <br /> The alternative site plan requires no variances, however, the proposal is <br /> still subject to review guidelines outlined in Chapters 40. 18 Subd. D (2) <br /> and 40.25 Subd. C (2) . I have included copies of both sections for your <br /> information. This request (the alternative site plan) has been reviewed <br /> by the Mounds View Planning Commission and they have recommended approval <br /> of the proposal in Resolution No. 367-93 . The Mounds View City Council <br /> reviewed this request at their September 7, 1993 Work Session. At that <br /> time, two main issues were raised concerning the proposal. First, it was <br /> suggested that control of t stacking area be provid d-vim-striping of-the <br /> approach to the facility. This would reduce the chance of vehicles waiting <br /> ,// - , .47 /l <br /> Paul Harrington, Cit Planner <br /> Adopt City Council Resolution No. 4422 approving a Conditional Use Permit <br /> for a fully automated, free-standing car wash at 2390 Highway 10, Planning <br /> Case No. 362-93 . <br />