04-16-1997 - 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 , -=97, regarding this request. He explained that the request con ts of(Y. otor fuel station with a fast food and car wash componen. restaur or housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson r ; -ed t ,:"ssion that the applicant, at their last meeting, provided a to Mpact re•?.0i nd traffic;` analyses and that the Commission had expressed sor •nc .,::: e • _ ' station and car wash components of the pr }ind f ng that the..;.<}:`r ",. }" t need any more of these types of uses. He d i iat he has recei' V ber of letters from residents bearing the same set~ fe }}} a distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car waskW.thin the City (7 car WV.itari washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that'4is use $rktent with the mmiComprehensive Plan and is consistent; tie Highway} ;<Area 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved _I ' hether'd;: t there is "too much" proposed for this piece of propery ale stat *applicant applicant is asking that the Planning Commission tak Ction th 'e*' t arding this request if .i�,` wa ..}}}..,ice}}}},.�,. . possible. Chair Peterson ested fat a mtd ;„ tange be made to the map of car washes. He pointed: at Sa -n shoul 'be added to the map. Commissioner Stever ,. . _,., . elieytt that th..ta are at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn D.eership. ,ice t errs a significant amount of water usage}} for the Cit, `Oso belie.`*.``..``*`.. ;ttoi;ild be added to the list. '?�µ :fir„^¢ �iexa�:}}}.�zi�z}�' �:}z},}„},r} �4zzµ�},�}z}}},}z�. 'zkzziiixiil"�a"ar Co Devet e > 'rector Sheldon explained that the applicant is requ' j :••:;,.,t this re` tve forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff :::.:., •.�,` `.,.,.;.aa}:.�. felt they <:o prepare a esolution because they did not know what the Plank .g> } n's reasoning was and what points should be included in the r ution. She ed that one possible option would be to take a straw poll 'tf the Planningrtsion regarding the general concept of the project in order �x� to give Staff some direction and the resolution could be brought to the next :w meeting. The}#mer option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would AKprepare the •• olution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote `r aken thatia w ening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any szk, �� : ; n if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs ' "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.).