04-02-1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mounds View Planning Commission April 2, 1997 Regular Meeting Page 5 The applicant, D.W. Jones, Inc, was represented at the meeting. Planning Associate Ericson reviewed the Staff Report dated April 2, 1997, regarding this request. He explained that the request consists of a motor fuel station with a fast food and car wash component, restaurant, senior housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson reminded the Commission that the applicant, at their last meeting, provided a tax impact report, market and traffic analyses and that the Commission had expressed some concern over the gas station and car wash components of the project indicating that the City did not need any more of these types of uses. He added that he has received a number of letters from residents bearing the same sentiment. He distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car washes located within the City (7 car washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Highway 10, Area 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved issues is whether or not there is "too much" proposed for this piece of property. He indicated that the applicant is asking that • the Planning Commission take action this evening regarding this request if possible. Chair Peterson requested that a minor change be made to the map of car washes. He pointed out that Saturn should be added to the map. Commissioner Stevenson believes that there would be at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn Dealership. Since this is a significant amount of water usage for the City, he also believes it should be added to the list. Community Development Director Sheldon explained that the applicant is requesting that this request move forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff felt they could not prepare a resolution because they did not know what the Planning Commission's reasoning was and what points should be included in the resolution. She explained that one possible option would be to take a straw poll of the Planning Commission regarding the general concept of the project in order to give Staff some direction and the resolution could be brought to the next meeting. The other option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote taken that evening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any sooner than if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs advice was to have a PUD plan developed that would include a detailed explanation of what was approved and what further issues would need to be resolved at later steps in the process (lighting, signage, traffic and access, dimensional requirements for building such as heights and setbacks, uses • allowed, drainage, etc.).