HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 245-89
.
.
.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 245-89
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A REZONING REQUEST
FOR 2625 HIGHWAY 10, PTW INVESTMENT,
PLANNING CASE NO. 260-89
WHEREAS, PTW Investment has applied to rezone the property
located at 2625 Highway 10, legally known as Lots 78, 79 and 80,
Spr1ng Lake Park Hillv1ew Addition, from R-3, Medium Dens1ty
Residential and B-4, High Density Res1dential to B-3, Highway
BUS1ness District; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 40.25, Subdivision A(5), provides that
the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on shall consider possible adverse effects
of the proposed amendment or conditional use. Its judgement
shall be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors:
1) Relat10nship to mun1c1pal Comprehensive Plan.
2) The geographical area 1nvolved.
3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate
the area in which 1t is proposed.
4) The character of the surrounding area.
5) The demonstrated need for sudh use.
WHEREAS, the rezon1ng request is incons1stent with the
C1ty's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designat10n for this property
Wh1Ch 1S h1gh density resident1al; and
WHEREAS, a B-3 development on th1S property would be
dIrectly adjacent to resident1al property on the north and east
and at a 10cat1on where access would be required on a resident1al
street, Eastwood Road, as well as at an 1ntersection already
exper1enc1ng heavy traffic loads, namely County Road I and
H1ghway 10; and
WHEREAS, the proposal has been submItted to the City in
order to allow the property owners to sell the property and no
development is currently before the Planning Commission or City
Counc1l for theIr cons1derat1on.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds V1ew
Planning Commiss1on recommends denial of th1S request because of
the following:
(1) The proposed zon1ng does not conform with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
.
.
.
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 245-89
PAGE TWO
(2) The proposed commercial zoning would be in confl1ct
wIth res1dential property to the north and east and
require access p01nts onto a residential street.
(3) There has been no demonstrated need for the use or
no use 1S currently proposed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission
directs Staff to forward th1S resolut1on to the City Council
pr10r to approval of the minutes.
Adopted th1S 10th day of May, 1989.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
'n. '
b Yeti- 0,1>-; 1lJu,-1;J
C1 ty Planner '