Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission November 2, 1988 <br /> Regular Meeting Page Three <br /> • in considering the variance. <br /> Chairman Mountin stated there were two ways to deal <br /> with this, either work with the ordinance in place or <br /> do a Code appeal, which would involve starting from <br /> scratch and rewriting the zoning ordinance, which <br /> could take up to a year or more to do. She added <br /> the Planning Commission knows the Code, as it is <br /> currently written, is causing difficulties in certain <br /> areas and they have lost some good developments <br /> because of it. She added a PUD would be the most <br /> advantageous approach to development, and the City <br /> has had fairly good success in using PUD ' s. <br /> Mr. Black stated he did not want to lose focus on <br /> the land issue, because there is not enough property <br /> for a PUD, which would cause it to be denied. He <br /> stated he feels there is some support by the Planning <br /> Commission, and he would like to be able to go to the <br /> Council with that. <br /> Mr. Black added they could approach the property owner <br /> to the north and attempt to purchase .9 acres, which <br /> would involve the water works easement. He pointed <br /> out, however, the development layout would not change <br /> as they could not build on the easement, so they would <br /> 0 not be adding anything. <br /> Chairman Mountin pointed out the planned use is not <br /> covered by the Code, and she polled the Commissioners <br /> on their thoughts. <br /> Commissioner Burgers stated he had recently observed <br /> many storage facilities in the east and found them to <br /> be primarily in industrial areas. He added that he <br /> does not have much of a problem with the proposal if <br /> they obtained the additional acreage needed. <br /> Commissioner Zollner stated she could not favor <br /> granting the variance as there is no hardship. She <br /> also stated she does not agree with putting it in B-2 <br /> zoning, as while this proposal may be attractive looking, <br /> they could also get unappealing ones and it would be <br /> difficult to deny those on the basis of their looks. <br /> Commissioner Alman stated in going through the Code, <br /> she feels the industrial zoning is best suited for this <br /> use, but this is low impact and does look nice, so <br /> she would not have a problem if the 5 acres was <br /> available. <br /> Commissiner Dian stated the design is attractive, <br /> but it looks industrial and does not belong in B-2. <br />