Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> commercial enterprise at that location would be viable and desirable for the City and immediate <br /> neighborhood. Ericson stated that the owner of the property has been actively seeking a developer <br /> for this site over the years, and that the parcel has not yet been sold. <br /> Commissioner Johnson stated that he was a member of the Mounds View and New Brighton <br /> Chamber of Commerce, and that a great amount of discussion has taken place regarding the subject <br /> property. He stated that no developers would consider the property until the Comprehensive Plan <br /> Update was completed. He stated that there have been a lot of proposals for that property, and added <br /> that he is not in favor of `down-zoning' at all. Ericson stated that he was not certain that this <br /> proposal could be considered `down-zoning' but agreed that this was an issue that should be taken <br /> into consideration. <br /> Commissioner Hegland inquired about any liability that the City might incur as a result of rezoning <br /> for this type of usage, because of the safety considerations in regard to traffic and the residents. He <br /> stated he would like further examination of the safety issues. <br /> Commissioner Berke asked about the difference in the tax base in terms of this building as opposed <br /> to a commercial type business. Ericson stated that at this point, the tax generated from the property <br /> was fairly insignificant. He added that they would look into the difference that a commercial <br /> endeavor would generate. Commissioner Berke stated that he assumed the tax base of the proposed <br /> development would generate considerably more that a video store. <br /> Commissioner Kaden stated that, in his opinion, the City of Mounds View already had a large amount <br /> of high-density residential development, and although this current proposal for this property was not <br /> an apartment building, it could possibly become that in the future as a result of changing the zoning. <br /> He stated that he had reservations about adding any more R-4 zoning to the City. <br /> Chair Peterson stated that he was not totally convinced that a commercial use was not an option at <br /> that location, but that something less intense would be more desirable. He stated that if this location <br /> was in an area that provided destination traffic, it might be viable for a commercial venture. He <br /> requested clarification regarding the suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan update had deterred <br /> development, noting that spontaneous Comprehensive Plan revisions have occurred in response to <br /> specific development requests in certain areas. Commissioner Johnson stated that the uncertainty <br /> associated with the process was a deterrent to developers. Chair Peterson stated that if there is an <br /> ambiguity between the current and proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the current zoning, this should <br /> not stand in the way of a particular development proposal from progressing. Commissioner Johnson <br /> agreed, but stated that the proposals for commercial development were not progressing. <br /> Ericson stated that staff required specific direction on how to proceed. He stated that the date of the <br /> 411 public hearing had not been set yet, although it was planned for the July 26 Council meeting. He <br /> stated that staff needed to know if the Commission felt that a recommendation could be made at the <br /> next Planning Commission meeting, or if the public hearing should be set for the first Council meeting <br />