My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-03-2004
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
11-03-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 6:42:52 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 6:42:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission November 3, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Case CU2004-005 CUP 2280 County Road I “The Station” <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the applicants have requested approval <br />of a Conditional Use Permit for The Station at 2280 County Road I. He then reminded the <br />Commission that The Station is an existing nonconforming use as the property is not zoned <br />properly and, even if it were zoned properly, it does not have a conditional use permit and <br />currently does not satisfy the area and dimensional requirements for this type of use. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the owners of The Station would like to expand the use by adding <br />two more fuel dispensing stations. He then said that this matter was discussed at the October 6, <br />2004 meeting and Staff was asked to conduct research into the issue and determine whether it <br />may be appropriate to make an amendment to the City’s Code to differentiate between large and <br />small fueling stations. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that he conducted the requested research and was unable to find any <br />other cities that differentiate between small and large fueling stations. He then said that there are <br />concerns with the size of the lot and that there are congestion issues on the site. He further <br />commented that he contacted someone in the fuel station industry for an unbiased opinion and <br />was told that the additional fuel dispensing stations probably would not bring in further <br />customers, as a fueling station’s customer base is rather definite and this person felt that the <br />additional fueling stations probably would not add to the congestion and may, possibly, alleviate <br />some existing congestion at the site. <br /> <br />Director Ericson summarized for the Commission the list of issues with this request including the <br />fact that The Station does not have a CUP, it is not zoned properly for its use, it does not comply <br />with the Comprehensive Plan, it is not a conforming use, non-conforming uses cannot be <br />expanded, the City Attorney has indicated that adding fuel stations would constitute an <br />expansion of a non-conforming use and therefore it is prohibited, the City Code indicates that <br />non-conforming uses shall eventually be brought into conformity, the owners have requested a <br />conditional use permit to bring The Station into conformity with the Code, and The Station does <br />not satisfy the minimum requirements of a fuel station. <br /> <br />Director Ericson reviewed the Commission’s options which include recommending denial of the <br />CUP as it does not satisfy the minimum requirements, recommending denial of the expansion of <br />The Station’s request to add two fuel stations, recommending denial of the CUP, yet recommend <br />the applicants’ request a Code amendment, conditionally recommend approval of the CUP <br />request subject to satisfaction of all requirements within a specified time period, including: lot <br />size, parking, setbacks, lot width, zoning, Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that Staff recommends approval of a resolution recommending denial <br />and not because Staff has anything against the Station but, based on City Code and the <br />recommendation of the City Attorney, that this would constitute a violation in that an expansion <br />of a nonconforming use is not allowed. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked Staff to review the findings of fact listed in the Resolution of denial.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.