HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-01 PC MinutesPROCEE()IN45 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MIX1ND5 VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MlNNESOTA
Regular Meating
April 1, S~~Y
/''~ Ptounds Wew C1ty Naii
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds V9ew, MN 66112
- ----°°--~---.-.-...-°--^-------------°-°.-..._._......._...°°°----...-...
The Mounda Y9ew Planning Camnt~slon was celled 1, Catt to Order
to ordnr aC 7:00 p.m. on Apr11 1, 1981, ~;ry
Chetrperaon Mountln.
Members Prasent: Comnissloners McCarChy, Glazer, 2. 'Ro11 Cet1
arren, er, Breske, and Chelrpe non Mountin.
Aiso PrasenL: Councllmem6ers Blancherd and Forsiund;
en u ng and 2oning Officfal Rose.
7he eppiicant, dames 8. Jackson, Ss requesting 3. Pub11n Hearing - Praperty
rezoning from R-1 to'R-3 for his property ~ocated involved: ?935 Hwy. 10
a t 2935 Hwy. 10. Rezoning R-1 to R-3.
(Medium denslty reside~tieij
Offtstal Rose esked thet those prasent for the publlc Cese 73-81
heertng sign-in with Lhe1r name and address for the James 0. Jackson
r ecord.
Officiat Rose revlewed Lhe Vinnning Consideretlons.
Ha stat:d that the ~ppllosnt is requesting a use that
was consistant with the Comprehensive Plan Update.
~-= Mr. Jackson stated the~ the back portton of the
1ot, 1f KnollMOOd Has extended, c~utd be lefC as
R-2, and the front of tf~e 1ot on the Hlghway be
designaLed es R-3.
Robert Chestek, 8161 Spring Lake Road, stated that
the proposed rezoning ebuts itls proparty. Me esked
Nhet the 6-8 uM ts meant, Khat are Ehey proposing,
and Nhat kind of eccess ~vouid thera ~e. Ha sald
that he feets that thls land ahould be kept singi~
Pemiiy units. He further esked iP Chey put a hause
o n tha beck, how close wouid St be to his properCy.
Chalrperson Mountln dlscussed present zoning on
Nlghway 30. She dlscussed the limiting of eomner-
c1a1 growLh along H1ghway 10. She further discussed
the transltlonal zaning an Hlghway 10. She discussed
tAe difTerent densities. She stnttd thai It th¢
a pplleant were to deveinp the back of his properly,
he would heve to provl~ an acc~ss.
Mr. Chestek stnted thaC he feit thet this property
wes too sma17 for multipte famiiy. Officfal Rose
,/ discussed set beck requirements. He tptked about
e reA requlrements.
M OUNU5 VIEW PLAN~iNG CCF4~i15S10N Neguler MeeEing
Aege Two. Apr11 Sr 1y81
----'-----------°-----°° .......................^-°--------°°°--------------°_
Leenne SCrew, aree resident, esked 1f the beck of the
- 1at is developed could the propused acce,~s be e1ar1-
41ed. Chetrperson Mountin scated Lhat thcrc ::auld
be no exteneten of Ehe road wlthout e petltion
f rom affected owners of record. Jfflclei Rose
showed where the exlsEing Knollwaod 1s located end
~,~;sre the possible exteosion wou!d go.
Robert S,~odin 04k8d EbOUE ~hB 8A3@rtlBCltS.
Bernita Chestek, 8161 Spring Lake Road, asked (f the
rezoning wes approved, whet insurance wauld they heve
thet 1t would oniy be one singte unlt on the lot?
Off1c1e1 Rose d4scussed the Ordinence requlrements.
He ateted that the C1ty Cauncll and the P1enning
G ommisston before glving appravet would review
the proposal.
Mr. CNestak esked 1f the 1ot could be sp11t zoned?
Chelrperson Mountin steted thet thts would cause
e lot that woutd be iand-lacked. Mrs. Chestek
s teted thaC they are retired and are not lnterested
9n the extension of Knoliwood.
Jeniee Strootman, 2950 Western Avenus North, askeJ
iP theN were proposinp townhouses7 Chatrperson
, _~ Mountin steted that they have not yet received
; a development proposal. -
~ Marlon OahNn, 2949 Highway 10, asked 1f townhouses
wepe built would there be a privacy fxnce. Officlal
~ Rose atated that it' they,propose townhouses, they ~
w111 hnve to obtaln e conditlonel use permiC which
would heve certein requliements thet woutd heve to
be met. Ms. Dah11n stnted thet she dtd not feei
thet the 1ot was wide enough for towrhouses.
Mr. Jeckson s4eted ~chat they would like to put in
Eownhouses,
Chetrperson Mountin steted thet screentng can be
' made as pert of Che condltianal use permit.
Lerry Peerson, 2910 Highway 10, 5teted th6t he
d oee not know what the essessments will cost him `
end votced concern regerding the developm~nt of
Ms propewLy. He said that he feels that a road
' or samething w111 heve to be put in, He eaked 1f
h1s property would be rezoned also, Chalrperson
Mount9n ntated thet he w111 have to epply for his
,' awn rezoning. Further she steted thnt tha access
~ off of Highway 10 mt~ght not be sufllctent.
; ~ ComnlssSoner ~reske asked coneerned resldente to ~
~ show where thair lots wera located. Several
residents discusaed where Lhe1r property was „
' localed. The Comprehenslve Plen wes diacussed.
t~ MOUN~S VIEW PLRMNINO CGMMISSI~N Reguiar Meeting
~ Page.Three-------------------°.-..--------------°-----°~-°------ April_1_-1981
~ Cha~rnerson Mounttn dlscuas~d Lhe need for more
medlum densiLy housing wtthin tne ~ity. Furtiier~
~~ thet Mr. Jack~on would heve to reteln or detein
weter runoff on hit ovm f1te.
The eecess on Hlghway l0 was discussed. Offtcial
Rofe aleted theL !he tend was epproxtmately 1.05
acrea in size end further Lhet only one bullding
parmlt woutd be ieaued for one bu91d1ng. Mr.
Jeckson stated thet the a1:e of M s lot wes lU6'
wida and 609' deep.
Comnlssloner Merren esked Mr. 5,{ adin how he fglt
a baut Lhe extenslon of Knollvrood7 Mr. S,~odin
~ teted thet he felt thet Knollrrood woutd have to
be extended. Ne asked ebout the storm water
drelnege. Storm water contral wes dlseussed.
Comnlss1oner Glazer esked how many uM ts end size
of units the applicent wouid heve. Mr. Jackson
atated thrt 1~ would depend on the amount of land
tha! 1e rezoned. Tho 1ot ae is could heve 6 units.
He turther etstad ~~et he has not drawn a pieh.
Mr. Jaekton stated thet he would 11ke to meke 1t
kr~own that he vrould not abuL *.he townhauses to the
R -1 properiy owners homes.
~' Discusslon in tengLh to~k plece rvgerding Lhe
'~.i s p11tt1ng of zoning en the 1ot. ASso on Lhe
e xtenslon of Kno11v!ood end storm watep ponding.
Consensus of the Planning Comnission regarding
e reeommendatlon:
M~~Car~th : I~autd like the record held open unt11
p pri1-16. 1981.
aleaer: Vbuld 11k4 further informetion, but is
w~Tl'~g ta lssue en opinlan. Further thet he
would not 11ke to keep the commerciel zoning
e11 the way on Highwey 10. Further would 11ke
to protect the lnternast proparty from hlgher
densltY encrm-chment. .
Werren: 4buld like the pubtic record held open
o~rther lnput - written comnents and ora1.
Mi11er: Wouid itke to continue the dlscussion at
e next agenda meet9ng.
Breake: Would like to act on tho lssue Lonlght.
~ ' McCarth : Steted thet she woutd like to have the
! ~ exec meesurement of the 1ot.
i Motlon Second: McCerthy/Mitler moved to hold the
f recor open unt11 4:U0 p.m. on Aprii 16, 1981,
tor Wrltten comme~ts lrom the resldents and
~
,
i
,f,
M WNDS VIEM P~ANNING COt~1ISSI0N
Page Fnur.
-°°°.-. - ^ °------°-----°------------------ ^ ° --- ^------------
further moved that this item be placed on the
~,.-.. agenda fur• discu.;ston P.prll iF; ?9R2, nnd further
~ that f1na1 aeClon he teken at the May 6, 1981v
Planning ComnlSSion Meeting.
Vote was teken by celling of the rail.
5 ayes 1 nay (ereske voted nay because he
would 11ke to dlscuss and
make a recortmendetlon thls
evening,)
hbtion Second: Glazer/McCarthy moved !o close the
pu c enr ng.
6 ayes ~ nays
MEETING WAS RECESSED AT: A:30 p.m.
MEETING kE-CONVENED AT: 8:39 p.m.
Motlon Second: McCarthy/Warren moved to table
e rc , 1981, Planning Commissian ~Itnutes
until the Meeting nf May 6, I981.
R~gular Me~ting
Apr11 1, 1981
°--°--°.-...
MOTION CARRIED
NOTION CARplfD
4. Approval of the March 4p
1981, regular maettng minutes.
6 ayes 0 nays MOTION CARRIED
~ ,_.
,' Alotion Second: McCarthy/Miller moved to approve
5. Approval of the March 18,
I; j " e 4rc , 1981 Speciat Meeting Mlnutes as 1981, Special Meetirtg.
received. M7nutes.
6 ayes 0 nays
i MOTION CARRIED
~ Peter KM g, 5493 Erlcksnn Road, stated thet he 6. Residents requests and „
i would like to butld e two ear gerage, that he now has cortments from the floor.
a single rar garage, but by Code he seonot wtthout
! closing,the fi'rst gerage a~d making it an additiune9
~ 1lving aree. He showed e drawing of his proposal
~ to the Planning Commissian.
Chairperson Mounttn asked if staff had told h1m that
~ he could pursue a variance.
I Consensus of the Pinnning Camnission: ~
i McCar_t~fiv • Oaes baslceliy support Zhe Code and 1s
j compieteTy ageinst two driveways.
~ Warren: Asked if he had looked at other ways of
j p ac nq the gerage such as moving the pr~posed
; geraqe further back nnd having off-street
~ parking.
~ It was steted thet Lhe er1sCing gArage is a single
; '°/ car gerege which 1s etteched Lo the mein structure.
Further thet the Code requtres thet eccessory
; s tructures be 6 feet from the prlnclple structure,
i
MWNDS VIEW PLANNiNG COMMISSION Re9ular 14eeting
Pege Five. Apr11 1, 1491
------'-------°^-----------°----- °-------------°-------...-°---°° --°-------
Warran; Stated that es e Plenning Comnissioner
~-^ sTieTie~ to uphold the aurrenE Codes. She is also
f opposed to Ewo curb cuts.
Miller: Cannot see two drlveways within the
ex~sEfng Code.
9reske: Concurred with Miller.
Jim Seltick, 7761 Greenwood, stated that the houee 7. Setback requlrements for
a t 7741 Greenwood is outside of the setback require- Bayport Acres flnal ptet.
ments. Ne stated that he ~voutd 11ke Lo ses tlie
f ront of the structure moved back two feat or Che
entlre building moved beck to nr~at Code limlts.
Sumnerv of Discu~sion:
- Nhen the proposal was first started, setbacks were
wlthin range li~nlts, but that the Ordinance had
been ahanyed during the time of this proposal and
that en error Dy the devetoper had resulted in the
wrong pircement o~ thls home.
- Further that thc builder and developer will be
notif9ed to where t+11 future structures can be
pleced.
--~
1RUting of the Planning ComnlSSion had been that if
~~i the devetoper butit something in the futurc that
wns not right, thet iC woutd heve to be moved.
There were no further comnents from the floor.
Sp~lling errors in the last peragraphwere noted: 8
technilogical in the 2nd ]ine shoutd be techno-
icg4cl; and in the 4th line uf the tast
paragraph sho~d be ~.
MAIN hbtlon Second: Breske/Warren moved to approve
Aeso u on as recalved with the spelling
errors corrected.
Mr:ndment to the Motion: McCarthy moved to amend
e me n mot on y a nC "and standards to be
set besed on flndings of thc Ptanning Comnisslon."
Amendment to the Motion fails for lack of a second.
Ce11 of Main Motion:
4 eyes 1 nay (McCarthy stated thet she voted nay
1 abstpn2lon because the fact that standards
should be set for Conditlonal Use
Permlts and they are not).
Resotutlon 13-81 - Recomnen-
dation regerding change in
allowable Condltio~ai User
Permlt uses'in a 11ght
indust~Aal district. '
MOTION .CARRIED
Commissioner Glezer left at 9:35 p.m.
MWNnS Vt~W PLANNING COMtdi5~i0r1 Reqular Maeting
Pege Six. Apl•il l0 198~
- -'-°"-'.'.""_°""""'_-""'."_"""""'_'_"'--"-"--."-_"-'°-""'..
Mr. end Mrs. Ch111nsk1, ownsrs of the property, end 9. Veriance (reduced house
M r. Da~~td Enge? : r,nntreetor. were in attendance. setbeck from 10` to 6')
~ 5242 Red Odk D71Vo - D0Vld
Official RAse presented the Planning Consideratlons Engei
re~erding the Verlence reques4 loceted et 5242
Red Oek DNive.
Mr. Dav1d Engels, 6~ntrector, steted that he hed
celled the C1ty for the setback requirements and
hed been told thet they wewe 30' for the house and
5' for the garage. Ne hed went on the essumptlon
thet he hed miscaicuieted the lot lines, Ho thought
khat thcro ~ras 12' on Lhe side thet he wes dealing
Nith. He seid that he had brought a drawing lnto
the C1ty and Lhat n survey had not been evaileble
a t th~t t4mr.
Commissicner Breske asked 1f a Building Permit
hed bnen 9ssued. Officlat Rose statad Chet the
appticant had ap~;lled for a Bullding Permlt, had
brought 1n a plen that showed e 72` setback and
thet the staff had fou~d out later that the sethack
wes only 5 feet. further that the bullder.and
owner were notified ta stop constructicn of the
a ddltlon, but that they cauld make the house
seeure for water shed, He discussed the buitding
permit process.
~ Comm15s1onttr M111er said ti1aC she has been out to the
a ree. She asked what the extension was from the
greenhouse. Mr. Ch111rfski steted thet it was e
workshop teaning onta the garage.
Mr. Engels sLated that he hed essumed that the
Bu11d1ng Permlt had been let at the time of the
Du91d1ng PermiL applicatton. Official Rase ~teted
that no Dullding Permit is every given at the time
of app]tcetion. He steted thet no Bu11d1ng Permit
was evEr issued.
Commissioner 0reske steted tt~a~ he feels that some-
thfng happened that the C1ty doesn't want to hnppen
again ar,d that 1s that - the Contractor started the
expansion withnut u Buitdi~g Permlt.
McCarthy stated that 1n the applieatlon she did not
feel that khis was a uMque hardsMp.
MA~tN MntlonLecon_d: Warren/Miller moved ta deny
tTe vnrlance on nase 75-81 for Mr. and Mrs.
Ch171nsk1 af 5242 Red Oak Drive, whereas SecCton
40.05, subd. c., nf the Code requires a 10! setback
f or the house side of e structure and thls structure
be a 5' setback; end, whereas this request does not
~demonstrete a hardshlp; and wherens EM s situatlon is
not unique to Mounds View.
Am~ndment ta the Mo 7on: McCarthy moved to emend
the motlon to add that "this property batng set
MGUNDS VIEW GLAtdt~ING COMNISSION Reguler A1eeting
Page Sevan, Aprii 1, 1981
------------^-°.-°.-°.-^------------------°~-°-^-°--°--°----°--------°----•.
off 5' from the properCy 11na daes not make thls
~ a uniq~~e hard5hin",
I~nendment to the motton faiis for tack of second,
Ca11 of the vote for the Main Motin:
5 ayes 0 nays MOTION CARRIED
Camnission instructed staff to notify applicants of
P,ppeals Procedure. Comnissioners discussed looking
at setback requir¢ments when the Ordinance is reviewed.
Commissioner Miller left at 10a0z p.m.
Mr. Jack Wetch, represenCing Scott Builders, Inc., 10. Conditional Use Parmit
was in attendance for this case. (Convenience Food Esteblish-
ment, B-3) development
Motion/Second: 9reske/4larren moved to approve proposal - 2391 Highw~y 10,
Resolution Mo. 11-81, ResoTution re:ammending approval Scott Builders, Inc, (Mr.
for Mr. Donut Yor a Conditionai Use Permit, Minor ponut) Case 64-80, Res. il-d1
Subdivison and Oevetopment execution, as re.ceived.
i
r
4 ayes 0 nays MOTION CARRIEO
The appiicant, Robert Eigenheer, and Keith Nelson,
~•. Engineer, were in atcendance for this case. 11, Ma~or Subdivision (1 lu;
~
' into 20) Single Family
Offtcfa
i Rose reviewed the Planning Considerations. DeVelopment - 2381 CounCy
Keith Nelson, En~lree~, stated thaL the d?sign of Road I, Mounds View Square
the proposal placed part of the road and some lote on Ptat - Robert Elgenheer
s wetland as exhlbtted in Ordinance N301 (Wetland Ni-19). Case 66-90
Mr. Eigenheer steted that he felt that they are not
developing the wetland area,'furthep that they are
trying to preserve the wetland. Ne said that it falls
w9thin the guidelines of the Rice Greek Watershed
Comnission.
Summary of Discussion:
- Interpretation of Ordinance q301.
- Sai7 types.
- Discussion of contours and ]00 year high water
level. 9U4' e]evation recomnendation versus
901' fnot elevation.
Councilmember Forslund read the March 9, 1987, City
Counci] Minutes regarding Ordinance N301 on the
morotorium prutecting the wetiands.
,~ a Discussion in lengt;h took place in regards to
t`~.' npproving this subdivisian before direction has
been given by the City Council regarding Ordinance
N3Q1.
MOUNDS YIEW PLANt1ING COMMISSION RAgular Meett~ig
Pnga E1ght, Aprit 1, 19II1
--^--------------°-------°...----------~----------...----°°----------°-°°--
MAIN Motion Second: Mountln/Warrer~ moved Co table
,I'1 e me or subaivieion raquest, cese 65-80 for Rabert
( E1nn~hB?~; l!ntil the City Counell nas prnvided the
Planhing Cd~mmission wlth pollcy direcCton for the
implementatlan of Ordinanee 301.
Breske asked for removal of the motion from the
f loor.
Motton: Breske moved that whereas the Ptanning
omm ssion started reviewal of Case 65-80 befare
adoptlon of Ordi~ence 301, and wherees eleer direction
f rom the Councii regarding cases Chat began bafore
Ordinance ~O1 hes not been g1vgn to the P1anning
Commission, and Nhe~~eas the developer has conformed
to our prevlous recomn~ndations, therefore be it
resolved tbaE the Eigsnhesr Subdivision bp forwerded
on to the Council for a decisian regnrding the
Nroposed subdlvlsion.
Moticn was out of order.
Ce11 of the vote Por the Main Motlon - Mauntin/Warren:
3 ayes 1 ney (Breske feels that he does nat nesd
a~iy further ctarificattan).
f JMotion Second: McCarthy/Warren moved to accept
~N/ eso ut on -B1,~Resolution recomnending
adoptfon of Yhe final drnft of the Comprehensive
Pyen to Ehe City Counc9l for the City of hk~unds
Y ief+. ~
4 ayes 0 nays
Mation/Second: Warren/ereske moved to ad~ourn
4 ayes O neys
AdJourned at 11:09 p.m,
~}
,
M07ION CARRIED
12. Resolution 12-81, P1ne1 ,
Draf.t of Comprehensive
Plen
MOTION CARRIED
13. Ad~ournment
MOTION CARRTED
^'~''.,. . __
!!:_}: e~~.
R£SOi.UTION N0. 11.-8~.
+ CITY OP MOUNDS VSEW
~'~~1 COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RBCOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR MR. llONUT FOR A
CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT~ MINOR SUBDTVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT EXECUTION
WHEREAS, Scott 6uilders, Inc. has requested appruval to ~;onatruci
a convanienca food establiahment, Mr. Donut; and
WHEAEAS, approval to r.onstxuct. the convenlence food establishment,
Mr. Donut, requirea the City to approve a conditional use permit, c~
minor aubdivision and a development aqreem~ntj and
WHEftEAS, the Planning Commisaion of Mounda View has reviewed the
request by Scott Bvilders~ Inc. and proviaiona of tha Mounds View Muni-
cipal Code pertaininq to conditional uae permite, minor subdivisiona nnd
developmont agrpamentsj and '
NHEREAS, the Planning ~ommission has recaived anil reviewed reporta
Lrom the City staEf and conaultants regarding the request and its appli-
cation to Mounda View Idunicipal CodaJ
~i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 'chat the Mounds View Plan.ning
'~~ Commiseion racommends approva.l of Scott Builders, Inc. sequeat to tha
Mounds View City Council wi.th tha fnllawinq conaiderations:
1. A conditionxl uee permit be granked to include the fallowinq
provis,ions:
a) Joint parking coven~nks be t'equired between Broaks
Superette and Mr. Donut to be filed and be of record
at Ramsey County Court House.
b) All canditione pertaining to the specific site are
aubject to review and change when the City, upon
investigation in relation to a formal request, finds
1) general welfare and public betterment can be
served as well or better by modifying the conditions;
and 21 upon a change in ownership.
2. Minor subr~ivision be grunted to include the Eo.llowing proviaions:
a) Drainaye easements be recorded for the ponding requira-
menta of Reaolution N~. 993.
b) Utility easement fo~ Brooks Superette be granted at
the time they are located or relucated. ,
~ ~
;'
n
~
~
~.
,;,,
~eaolution No. 11-81 Page 2
~ 3. Development agreetnenti be grantied to inolude the followl.nq. ~
provieions~
~
a) Exhibiteo ~
13 site etae ~
2) Surveyore Caztlfioabs
3) LAgal Dea~ription
4) Reeolutipn No. 983~ Sacuz~ty Requiraments ($1,000) , '
5) Huilding Plana and Spece ~
6) Joint Parking Covenanta
b) Park Fund Dedication i
c) Security for development in the amount of $23,750.00
d) Exhibit 2A to require the following:
, 1) Paymettt oE City expenaes as they may occ~r. .
2) Utility services for Brooke Superette shall be
relocated if thay fall within 5' o£ the foundstion
of the Mr. Oanut structure. After relocation proper ~
easements shall be filed.
Adopted this 'ist day o£ April, 1981.
~,./
ATTES'P i
~ " ~ ~ ,~
airperson
,r,. ,
~SEAL) '
8u n an 2on ng 0 C a ~'
, ~ ,'
~
~
~ ! ~ , i
~
a
'i
~,. ,: . . , .,.:., „ ..:, ,
,.~ , µ . .., . , , ,~ f
A~
I:~„,: ~
RESOLUTION N0. 12-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OC RAMSrY
5^1ii`T'n OF i~iIi1id880T11
RESOLUTION R~COMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE FSNAL DRRFT OF
TNE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE CI'fY COUNCIL F'OR THE CITY
OF MOUNOS VIEW
~
WHEREAS, praparati.on of the Mounds View Comprehansive Plan hes
been ~lndertaken in aomplinnce with the Metropolitan Land Planning act~
and
i9HEREAS, the Planninq Commiseion held a publie hearing on July
23, 1980, to roview the draEt plan with the Mounde View public~ and
WHEAEAS, the City Clerk pl.aeed the legal public notice of tihe
public hearing in the official city newspaper on the adoption of a neia
comprahaneive plani and ,
WHEREAS, the new Comprehensive Plan wae suUmitted {;o adjacent
and affocted communities and achool diatrictsi and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commiesion has now completed a r'.inal dra£t
of the Comprehensive Plan taking into account comments received from
Mounds View citizens and adjacent communities and districisi
NQW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL'J~D that the Mounds View Plnnning'
Commisal~~i a~opts the final ~raft of tlie ~omprehensive P.lan Updete and
recommende the Mounda View City Counr.il adopt the Plan after the Matro-
polikan Council has reviewed and approved it;
BE IT~FURTHER AESOLVEb that the Mounds View Planning Commission
recommenda continued Use of the Comprehensive Plan Update as an interi'um
plan during Motropolitan Council review.
Adopted this lst day of April, 1981.
ATTEST s , , ~.
~ Cha rperson ,
(SCAT.)
Bu ng an zon nq o c al
~
w~.:~~.c ..
RESOLUTION N0. 13-81
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
r~~°°``~ CuL'[Q'PY' uF Rr1MSEY
„ STAT~ OF MINNESpTA
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CHANGG SN ALLOWABLE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT USCS IN A LIGHT INDUS'PRIAL DISTRICT
WHEREF~S~ Carley Pattern Compsany has applied for a rezoning o£
the property located at 4751 Muatany Lane from I-1 (Light Induatriel)
to I-2 (Heavy Industrial), Case No. 68-901 and
W!IEREAS, the Plamiing Commission reccmmended to the City Counoil
(Reaolution No. 09-81) that the property not be rezonedt and
WHERCAS, upon a thorough review of the proposal, the applicant's
intended uac~, and the Municipal Codej and
~~~{~~A9, the Planning Commission Pinds that the pxoposed develop-
ment, Carley Pattern Com~any:
1) will not depreciate tha areu in which it is proposed,
2) will not intruduce tteavy traffic into the area,
3) creates no wa~te by products, noxlous ~dora or fumes,
or increased noise,
~ 4) will not requira outaide storage,
~ 5) will not af£ect the chara:.ter of the surrounding area,
6) is heavily regulatad and policed by both State and Fedexal
agenciea such as PCA and OSHA, and
7) tha nature of this development does not r.equira isolation
Erom other industrial or cammeratal uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Com-
mission recammen3a to the City Council that the Carley Pattern Company
be permi~te3 to develop on the property located at 4751 t4ustang Lane
as a conditional use in an 2-1 District as regul¢te3 by Section 90.23
of the Municipal Codej
BE IT FURTHER f{ESOLVED that it is the finding of the Planning Com-
miseion that due to technological progrer,s and impruved regulation by,
State and Federal agenciea, the Commisaion intends to continue ita ra-
view in order to recommend other typas oL• industriea thatma,y be considered
as allowed under conditional uae hermits in an I-1 District.
Adogted this iet day of April, 1981.
ATTESTs
( I (SEAL)
~`./
C a rperson
ui ng an Zoning 0 c a
~s~,; ~.~~ ~ ~