07-21-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 19 commercial enterprise at that location would be viable and desirable for the City and immediate neighborhood. Ericson stated that the owner of the property has been actively seeking a developer for this site over the years, and that the parcel has not yet been sold. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was a member of the Mounds# t d New Brighton Chamber of Commerce, and that a great amount of discussio s taken p c y arding the subject ' ' '» property. He stated that no developers would consider the � pert y un it Update �`;tr` ` * ` A P rehensive P Update was completed. He stated that there have been a lo: of proposal-s that : and that he is not in favor of 'down -zoning' at all. Ericson; tated thathe was n :: <; a :.; at this Air proposal could be considered down -zoning but agreediu 'vas an issue tha lice taken into consideration. Commissioner Hegland inquired about any liability thate Cit for this type of usage, because of the safety considerations in regal' stated he would like further examination of the sa ety isstt . the � x' r> `>:i s of this buildingas opposed Commissioner Berke asked about the differ..bee in th��a�:`>.;�ry�tez.. pp to a commercial type business. Ericson st ed that a < :his po e4ax generated from the property was fairly insignificant. He added tl•t they viftild lookterthe difference that a commercial endeavor would generate. Commist Berke4 tated that ` assumed the tax base of the proposed development would generate cons] erably m, that a v :.: eo store. Commission' •: aden stated : n: his opini t tie<.=>t %of Mounds View already had a large amount of high- Sz:::. i lential de I pwept, and a ttitfgh this current proposal for this property was not an apartapartm it could I t ecome that in the future as a result of changing the zoning. �{ �...."` '`` -ding any more R-4 zoning to the City. He stated tha'� ��'t'servatio 1?1~;��. Chair Peter ; `e` >' `'e as notttotally convinced that a commercial use was not an option at that loc.:: but that so :.::_: intense would be more desirable. He stated that if this location was : n area t a prodestination traffic, it might be viable for a commercial venture. He re s: ;.�Mted clarification r rding the suggestion that the Comprehensive Plan update had deterred d :6 opment, noting th, spontaneous Comprehensive Plan revisions have occurred in response to c development quests in certain areas. • Commissioner Johnson stated that the uncertainty ed with t elrocess was a deterrent to developers. Chair Peterson stated that if there is an ie current and proposed Comprehensive Plan, and the current zoning, this should ay of a particular development proposal from progressing. Commissioner Johnson agree , ut stated that the proposals for commercial development were not progressing. Ericson stated that staff required specific direction on how to proceed. He stated that the date of the public hearing had not been set yet, although it was planned for the July 26 Council meeting. He stated that staff needed to know if the Commission felt that a recommendation could be made at the next Planning Commission meeting, or if the public hearing should be set for the first Council meeting • Or as a result of rezoning fi and the residents. He