05-21-1997 - 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. 997, regarding this request. He explained that the request consists o !motor fuel station with a fast food and car wash component,restaurtx} or housing complex, and an office building. Mr. Ericson re ded thealet ssion that the , applicant, at their last meeting, provided a WO/Tact report, �, _ke :, nd traffic traffiqe.r analyses and that the Commission had expressed sorpp one of ::he ga station and car wash components of the pr e �t nding that the did> of need any more of these types of uses. He dd 4 'at he has receive number of letters from residents bearing the same se` nej' e distributed a map showing all of the gas stations and car wasOTIOORIUthin the City (7 car washes, 6 gas stations). He indicated that this us4ligimslent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent a Highway1O rea 9, Study. He explained that one of the unresolved k€; hetherrortot there is "too much" proposed for this piece of propert He it ; "„that t `applicant is asking that the PlanningCommission take�`'`�tion thise\{{isti�i+j2`:i'I ardin this request if possible. Chair Peterson requestedzYU t a mr ,ttange be made to the map of • car washes. He pointed:oe: :that Sa wn shout `be added to the map. Commissioner Steve ri1'beliexthat the are at least 400 car washes a month at the Saturn D. ership. ce tbjs4.s a significant amount of water usa for the Cit.;�j iso bellAwkt bald be added to the list. 4r� .4e,,„ ,;,:�:.�z.4 -sones ,�:�.�,,,:tea: C` t,Devef`".` �`'` .t •,erector Sheldon explained that the applicant is reque t::•'.tth ?t this r'•`•'"OImpve forward. Director Sheldon explained that Staff felt thet au d °prep` solution because they did not know what the Plan 3gC : t on's reasoning was and what points should be included in the resolution Sneed that one possible option would be to take a straw poll ;; ...:4. f the Planning "rssion regarding the general concept of the project in order tt to give Staff some"direction and the resolution could be brought to the next i f meeting. TheAther option would be to hold the discussion and Staff would 111 prepare the resolution without taking a vote. She explained that having a vote oaken thatAt ening would not result in the proposal getting to City Council any z;tttt i. :,x " 'sn if it was decided at Planning Commission's next meeting. Staffs wia• ~i '' twas to have a PUD plan developed that would include a detailed h'*'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.).