Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council December 12, 1988 <br />Regular Meeting Page Five <br />Dale Jones identified himself as the owner of the <br />property to the north. He stated he does not object <br />to the project but he does object to the vacation of <br />Mounds View Drive, as that would cut access to his <br />property and lower the value. He added he plans to <br />develop his land at some point and wants to use the <br />access to it <br />Mr. Wistrom stated they have a difference of opinion <br />on the roadway, and that roadway was meant to serve <br />this project only, and not Mr. Jane's land. He <br />added this development would be a benefit to the <br />City now, and Mr. Jones is not ready to develop his <br />property at this time. <br />City Planner Herman clarified that Mr. Jones is the <br />owner of the property known as the St. Paul waterworks. <br />Mr. Jones reported he had spoken with the waterworks <br />and a bridge would not be required to be built over <br />the easement, and he again stated he did not want <br />to lose access to his property. <br />Mayor Linke clarified that the issue before the <br />Council is an appeal by the applicant of the denial <br />by the Planning Commission for a variance request <br />for a 5 acre PUD down to 4.1 acres. <br />Mr. Jensen stated there is a substantial hardship <br />in the public storage business with the requirement <br />for separate zoning for each building. <br />Mayor Linke pointed out there would also be a pro- <br />blem with the resident manager living on the <br />property. <br />City Planner Herman explained the applicant has <br />requested a variance from the minimum project size. <br />The PUD zoning and appropriateness of B -2 zoning <br />was discussed at the Planning Commission level, and <br />the Planning Commission felt they should act on the <br />variance request, as without it, the project would <br />not be able to go through. She added there was <br />discussion about the appropriateness of zoning for <br />this type of use. <br />City Planner Herman briefly reviewed the Planning <br />Commission's Resolution No. 238 -88, stating there <br />were no extraordinary circumstances to apply to <br />this project, and the applicant did not present <br />ny reasons to show it was exceptional or extra- <br />ordinary. She also pointed out they would have <br />h,d the required 5 acres if the owner had not sold <br />off a portion of this property to Burger King. She <br />also reviewed the criteria for granting a variance <br />and stated the Planning Commission did not feel all <br />