Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Regarding public notification for this meeting, Planner Ericson informed the Commission that <br />staff sent out approximately 360 notices and are doing all they can to get the word out. He <br />reported they put much information on the City’s website about the development proposal, <br />including a copy of the last staff report. They also put a notice in the Mounds View Matters, <br />which was just recently delivered to residents. He stated the City is trying to assure they obtain <br />as much input as possible. From this meeting, he hoped to be able to have a resolution drafted <br />subject to the information that has been presented from him, the public, and the developer. The <br />resolution could either represent approval or denial of this development proposal and could be <br />prepared for the next Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. <br /> <br />Kyle Longstead, 7901 Edgewood Drive, questioned if the City would put an Embers up in this <br />location knowing that there is an Embers by Northown. He compared this to putting in another <br />Walgreens so close to the one by Northtown. He feels they are saturating the area with similar <br />product with the possibility of another empty building two or three years down the road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson responded that according to law they cannot deny another drug store <br />because they already have one. Mr. Longstead said he understands that, however, he hopes some <br />thought has gone into what they are developing. He stated he is a worried they are going to have <br />an empty building that no one will rent or buy. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Stevenson said this issue was a big concern, especially when Walgreens was <br />going to go in on County Road I, which was the original proposal and was even closer to <br />Northtown. He stated they asked the same question of saturation to the developer and he <br />convinced them that the drug stores are two-fold. Walgreens relies on local people who can <br />walk to it, and there are a lot of senior citizens in the area. Also, it will be the destination of <br />people driving northwest on Highway 10. He explained the developer wanted a Walgreens <br />location with easy access. That is why they wanted the location on this side of the Highway. He <br />stated that in answer to Mr. Longstead's question, the developer convinced most of the <br />Commission that it would be an viable operation in this location. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden stated he attended a land use and planning seminar where a presenter who <br />taught the seminar had practiced in land use law for over 30 years. She informed them it actually <br />violates the U.S. Constitution in some way for them to determine they cannot have a Walgreens <br />here because there is one down the road. He explained if they meet all the conditions, the <br />Commission cannot consider the close location issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Longstead noted it is not Walgreens in particular he has a problem with, he has a problem <br />with the saturation. Commissioner Kaden said he understands that, he grew up in Mounds View <br />and every time a new gas station went up on Highway 10 another one went out of business. He <br />did not understand why they kept adding more. However, he learned the Council and Planning <br />Commission cannot say there are too many gas stations and they are not going to approve <br />another one. <br />