06-07-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Laube pointed out that a Planned Unit Development could be amended. He inquired if it would be more appropriate to address this issue through the zoning designation, rather than within the Planned Unit Development document. Community Development Director Jopke advised that the property owner could propose to change the designation at any given point, however, if the land swap takes place, the City would be the property owner, and therefore, would have complete control over the property. Mr. Cunningham offered that if it was the desire of the City to maintain that property as perpetual Open Space, the City could attach a protective covenant to the deed to prohibit any form of development, regardless of the zoning. Chairperson Peterson stated that in all of the proposals that have come forward for this property, he was not aware of any proposed use for anything other than the developable area of this property, with the remainder of the property simply serving a natural preservation role. Mr. Cunningham stated that they had brought forward the possibility of developing a park on the upland, however, there appeared to be no interest in this, but rather, more interest in leaving the area as it exists, with the exception of a pedestrian trail. Commissioner Hegland stated that 112 parking spaces were required for the proposed development. He inquired if this number was based upon the Code requirement for this business. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this requirement was set forth in Chapter 1121 of the City Code. Commission Hegland stated that it did not appear that the applicant could meet this requirement, however, this appears to be a large number of parking spaces for such a use. He inquired regarding the number of spaces the applicant would generally desire for a project of this nature. Mr. Cunningham stated that if these were stand-alone parcels, Walgreens would generally look for 70 to 75 parking stalls, and a 4,500 square-foot Culver’s Restaurant would generally look for 45 to 55 parking stalls, which is not inconsistent with the Code requirement, however, there was a certain synergy in having the parking of these two businesses in close proximity to each other. He indicated the parking was more than adequate for the two proposed uses. Commissioner Hegland stated that the proposed parking appeared to be somewhat excessive. Mr. Cunningham pointed out that it was somewhat less than that required by the City Code, and this was reflected in the synergy factor. Chairperson Peterson stated that there have been some ideas in the past regarding the drainage plan, and this was one of the reasons that at the Council level, it was decided that the pond should be moved to the other side of Edgewood Drive, so that it could potentially be relocated elsewhere. He inquired regarding the current plans for the pond.