7.2. SR 06-20-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission meeting summary The majority of the discussion the Planning Commission had was with the number of parking/display stalls and auto repair. An adjacent property owner voiced his concerns, stating: ■ Auto repair, which is not allowed in this PUD, would disrupt the adjacent townhomes, ■ Signage (which is not on the subject property) has not been addressed, ■ What impact would be on his parking lot, just west of the subject property display lot, if more dealers were allowed than the applicants parking lot could hold, ■ He further questioned how anyone would be able to exit/enter a car in stalls that are only seven feet wide. He asked the Planning Commission to evaluate the proposal at its full potential (or "worst case" scenario), not at what the applicant says the current conditions are. The applicant does not agree with staff s parking numbers and questioned why the concrete islands need to be so wide. Staff reviewed the parking numbers. The Planning Commission agreed with staffs numbers. Staff indicated they showed the islands on the parking exhibit as a standard stall width but could work with the applicant to maybe reduce the size of them. Another individual spoke regarding the need for proper hazardous waste collection devices/ structures and that the repair shop should meet the MPCA regulations for hazardous waste. The Planning Commission agreed with the parking numbers staff presented and that the number of dealers should be limited to nine. They also did not want to get into defining what "auto repair" meant. If it was the desire to have auto repairs in this PUD, they suggested an amendment to the PUD agreement. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. Attachments ■ Location Map ■ Applicants Narrative ■ Site Plan ■ Building Plan ■ Parking Exhibit ■ Parking Numbers Exhibit ■ Environmental Memo dated May 4, 2016 ■ Police Department Memo dated May 2, 2016 ■ Applicant Submitted Site Plan