Agenda Packets - 1993/09/07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 4 • Report Number: 93-605WS WNWll( REPORT �C 1° AGENDA SESSION DATE September 7, 1993 Report Date: 9-2-93 DISPOSITION Item Description: Discussion of Request for Conditional Use Permit, Gateway Foods, 2390 Highway 10 Administrator's Review/Recommendation: 4_ - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; In May of this year, Gateway Foods, representing Brooks Market - 2390 Highway 10, made application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an automated car wash to be placed on the Brooks property. That application, as originally submitted, also requested the granting of a variance to allow the car wash facility to be located within the required rear yard setback. The Mounds View Planning Commission, after review of the proposal at their May and June Agenda Sessions, denied the request for variance. Specifically, in Resolution No. 363-93 , the Commission cited the lack of a demonstrated hardship on the property; a current, reasonable use of the property; the lack of the request being unique to this property; and, the need being self created as reasons for denial. Following the Planning Commissions' decision, the applicant, as allowed by Municipal Code, appealed their decision to the City Council level. The Mounds View City Council, at their July 12, 1993 meeting, concurred with the findings of the Planning Commission and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution denying the appeal. Prior to that Resolution being acted upon, the applicant submitted an alternative site plan for consideration. The alternative site plan requires no variances, however, the proposal is still subject to review guidelines outlined-in-Chapters-4-0. 18 Subd. D (-2)--- and--4-0-r25 Subd.-- -C---(-2-)_-. I have included__copies of both sections for your information. This request (the alternative site plan) has been reviewed by the Mounds View Planning Commission and they have recommended approval of the proposal in Resolution No. 367-93 . Because no official action was ever taken on the Conditional Use Permit, the Council referred the alternative site plan back to the Planning Commission level for reconsideration. The alternative site plan has been included for your consideration and review. ,, .---7 ---,) (//-('''';,4 Paul Harrington, C.'ty Planner RECOMMENDATION; Staff is seeking Council direction on this matter.