Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council October 8, 1984 <br />Regular Meeting Page Two <br />Mr. Werdien had no comment on the request. <br />Mayor McCarty closed at the public hearing and <br />reopened the regular meeting at 7:46 p.m. <br />Clerk Administrator Pauley presented an 7. Approval of <br />addendum to Item C of the consent agenda the Consent <br />and asked that it be included for approval. Agenda <br />Motion /Second: Doty /Hankner to approve the <br />consent agenda, with the attachment to Item <br />C, and waive the reading of the resolutions <br />5 ayes 0 nays <br />Motion /Second: Linke /Hankner to approve <br />the conditional use permit for Holiday <br />Station Stores at 2800 Highway 10. <br />Councilmember Hankner aye <br />Councilmember Blanchard nay <br />Councilmember Doty nay <br />Councilmember Linke aye <br />Mayor McCarty nay <br />Motion Carried <br />8. Consideration <br />of Planning <br />Commission <br />Recommendation <br />on Holiday <br />Station Stores <br />2800 Hwy. 10 <br />Motion Failed <br />Councilmember Linke pointed out the zoning noes rule <br />in this case, and the development would be in <br />conformance with the existing zoning. He pointed out <br />everything was in order with the exception of the <br />required parking space, and that there is no real <br />reason other than the Comp. Plan to deny the <br />applicants request. He pointed out the courts allow <br />the zoning to rule. <br />Councilmember Blanchard stated the Planning Commission has <br />recommended against the development for very valid reasons, <br />and the Council should not go against their recommendation. <br />She stated she felt the development goes against the Comp. <br />Plan. <br />Councilmember Hankner stated she agreed with Councilmember <br />Linke's thoughts, and that they had been advised by Attorney <br />Meyers that the zoning ordinance carries, and the land is <br />currently zoned for the proposed development. <br />Councilmember Doty stated he felt the Planning Commission <br />had valid reasons for denial, and it may be in the City's <br />best interest to follow the Comp. Plan and then rezone. <br />Mayor McCarty stated that for the most part, he felt the <br />traffic information which was compiled by the developer <br />was inadequate, not did the developer use the City's planner <br />as requested by the Planning Commission as <br />they had been asked to. He added this develop- <br />ment had been caught in the middle of the <br />