Agenda Packets - 1986/04/21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�I Aouk MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council / FROM: Director of Public Works/Community Dev olopment DATE: April 16, 1986 SUBJECT: ROSEWOOD CORPORATION'S APPLICATION FOR MINI-STORAGF. FACILITY Attached please fins; the following: Application dated August 9, 1984 Staff report dated November 7, 1934 Revised drawings dated February 11, Planning Commission Resolution No. April 2, 19e6 Planning Commission April 2, 1986 1986 155-86 dated Resolution No. 159-86 dated The applicant requests a code change, major subdivision and development review approval to construct a mini -storage facility. Code Code, Chapter 40, needs to be amended because it does not expressly permit a mini -storage facility with house/office for a resident manager. The mini -storage facility rill have 588 garages. Mini -storage facilities with approximately 600 garages normally have a house/office for the resident manager. The house/office is not permitted in the I-1, Industrial District. The Planning Commission recommends amending Chapter 40 of the City Code to allow the house/office for resident manager as a conditional use. In other words, the applicant must obtain a conditional use permit from the City to have a mini -storage facility will a house/office fcr the resident manager. The proposed change will allow a house/office with mini -storage facilities only In other words, a house/office cannot be constructed with an other use in the I-1, Industrial District. The Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the development based on several contingencies included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 159-86. Please refer to this resolution for details. Rosewood Corporation has a purchase agroement with Mr. Russ Underdahl who owns the property. I understand that Rosewood Corporation is sueinq Mr. Underdahl to perform on the purchase agreement. This fact raises the following question. Who owns the land and who has the right ro build on it? Normally, the City processes applications for companies that have purchase agreement with the land owner, and Lhe land owner and developer are not sueing each other. In this case, they are sueing each other. I talked to the City Attorney about the advisability of processing this application further. Our opinion is that we should not process this application until the civil suit is settled. Mr. Underdahl indicated that he would be sending me a letter indicating that the purchase agreement is basically null and void according to his opinion. RECOMMENDATION: Table tho application until the o%vnership issue is resolved. SWC/bac