Minutes - 2002/09/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 23, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 8 • Council Member Stigney asked if the trailways were addressed with this development. Planner Atkinson indicated the trailways were taken care of when the Mermaid expanded. Mayor Sonterre closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Planner Atkinson showed a colored drawing of the proposed building. Council Member Marty questioned that it seemed that there were five spots for loading docks. Rob Carlson, the developer, indicated there would be three loading docks for the purposes of shipping and receiving. Council Member Stigney asked if there would be two tenants in addition to Abbey Carpet. Mr. Carlson indicated that Abbey would be taking 50% of the building and it is possible that the other half of the building could have two tenants. He then said that they have not begun marketing the building but would do so when construction has begun. MOTION/SECOND: Thomas/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 5847, a • Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Joint Facilities Parking and a Development Review for Abbey Carpet, to be Located at 2214 County Highway 10. Ayes - 5 Nays - 0 Motion carried. B. Public Hearing to Consider the Rezoning of Adjacent Properties Located at 2901 and 2925 Highway 10 from B-3 and R-1 (Respectively) to R-3 (Collectively) to Allow for the Construction of Townhome Dwellings. Mayor Sonterre opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Planner Atkinson explained that the Planning Commission reviewed the request and held a public hearing. He then said that there are two issues to be considered with a rezoning. The first is that the rezoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and, in this case, it is consistent because the Comprehensive Plan shows a mixed use PUD and R-3 would fall under the umbrella of mixed use PUD. The second criterion is that the rezoning not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Planner Atkinson indicated the Planning Commission felt that rezoning the two properties would be detrimental to the future land use planning. He then explained that the properties in question do not total three acres as is required for a rezoning to PUD. He further explained that the • properties on either side of the proposed properties also do not total three acres and that means that it would be impossible to achieve a PUD zoning in the future.