02-20-1996 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

�J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 ( #1 - #2017 John O'Sullivan - Continued) Jim Grabek voiced his dissension of the motion saying it was a bad mistake and a forcing of a neighbor, who has been there for 9 years, not to invest in the neighborhood. Grabek said the corner would not be developed with the turning down of the application. He said the Commission was letting the community down just because they do not want a car wash on the location. He asked if the Planning Commission has looked at why the car wash is needed from a financial standpoint. Schroeder answered that it was not part of the process to look specifically at the financial details of the car wash, nor did he believe it would be divulged. Schroeder said whether a car wash was needed or not was not clear to him noting granting of variances for new construction is not easily done. Grabek continued by asking the amount of the project. After being informed by the applicant of the cost of the project at $2.3 million, he opined it would be a disservice to the citizens of Orono to deny the application. Thompson noted that the car wash would be screened from the residential area. Schroeder said that was not the point as there would be no development in that particular area. Thompson said he thought the car wash was being denied due to the 5' setback. Smith reiterated that the application involved granting of variances for new construction. Understanding that the project was intensive, Smith said she was not opposed to the conditional uses and structural coverage but opposed to the variances for structures and parking, which Smith said should remain within the limits of the code in new construction. Smith said she understood it was a good operation and an improvement to the area, adding a car wash may be possible, but asked that it be done without requiring any variances. Hawn said she agrees with the comments by Smith and is concerned with the traffic plan for the site. Hawn said she has not been satisfied with what she has been told, noting there are too many entry directions and uses on the plan and can see an accident occurring. Schroeder commented that this was a different issue from setbacks. Hawn agreed but saw the denial of the variance as the only way to reduce the intensiveness of the site. Grabek asked if the Engineer has appraised the traffic pattern and safety. Mabusth said the Engineer has major concerns and wants to discuss the concerns with the applicant and Hennepin County. She said she has received no confirmation from Cook regarding the resolutions of the concerns and noted a recent letter from Hennepin County expressing their concern with the cross traffic activities at the intersections. Grabek asked Hawn what she based her opinion on regarding the lack of safety. Hawn answered that she uses her judgment of common sense but would be willing to listen to what the applicant had to say. 7