Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 1997 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> consideration of this proposal. He added that the applicant is uncomfortable with <br /> the Planning Commission's overriding concern as it relates to the gas station and <br /> the buffer. He indicated that, at the present time, the items they have proposed are <br /> not negotiable. He realized that this was only a concept review and that during the <br /> development stage there would be additional issues to be addressed in a more <br /> thorough review by both the Planning Commission and City Council. He asked that <br /> the Planning Commission, at their next meeting, make a recommendation to the <br /> Council so that they can present their proposal for the Council's comments and <br /> review so that they could either come back after Council action with a different plan <br /> or proceed with the development stage. <br /> Commissioner Brasaemle proposed that Staff prepare resolution of both approval <br /> and denial for their next meeting. He also suggested that Staff complete as much <br /> information in the PUD document as possible and the Planning Commission could <br /> fill in the blanks at their next meeting. <br /> Chair Peterson asked the applicant, since they had expressed no room for <br /> negotiation, if the Planning Commission would be looking at the same proposal at <br /> 11 their next meeting or would there be any changes made to the proposal. Mr. Black <br /> informed the Commission that as they proceeded into the development stage, they <br /> would receive further details on the architectural style of the buildings, landscaping, <br /> traffic circulation on the site, storm water quantity and quality control and NURP <br /> pond design, but added that differences between the Planning Commission and the <br /> applicant are far apart. He commented that the Planning Commission was <br /> suggesting elimination of the gas station which was something that they would not <br /> consider at this time. He advised the Commission that the issues regarding too <br /> much development on the site or the impact on the wetland could not or would not <br /> be changed before their next meeting. <br /> Commissioner Brooks left the meeting at 10:10 p.m. <br /> 7. Staff Report/Information Items <br /> a. Director Sheldon reminded the Commission that the SRF Consulting Highway 10, <br /> Area 9 Report would be presented at the City Council meeting Monday evening <br /> (April 7). <br /> b. Ms. Sheldon reported that the University of Minnesota Design Course had provided <br /> a schedule of the meeting and they are looking for Commissioners to serve as a <br /> • regular member of the design team and as an alternate member. Some of the <br />