Laserfiche WebLink
-8- <br /> This site,' zoned light industrial, has been proposed for development <br /> as R-1 in the Comprehensive Plan,. which plan also states a conflict <br /> between industrial and residential use exists in this area because ,. <br /> of its location near the holding pond which is known as Mirror Lake <br /> around which there- are apartments, condominiums, townhouses and single <br /> family residences. However,' Mr. .Blanske and Mr. Hance both stated <br /> that there :is more intense industrial usage than Mr. Blanske is <br /> proposing such as Happy' s Potato Chips, St. Anthony Millwork, the <br /> "metal building" and Berger Transfer close by the mini-storage <br /> facility in the area. Mr. Hance insisted "Mr. Blanske's property <br /> would not be a good location for townhouses" and saw the facility,. <br /> as proposed,as .being a good.-buffer between the other- industrial <br /> development and multiple family dwellings in the area.. ' He told the <br /> Commission "Bernie has spent years protecting the industrial character <br /> of his land", agreeing to townhouse development, at the same time he <br /> has always verbally reminded the City that he had bought this <br /> particular parcel intending to develop itas it is zoned for- light <br /> __industrial" . He said Mr. Blanske could leave the hill at the site <br /> - as it is, so the existing building will be shielded from the <br /> residential dwelling, if the City consents to vacate the unused <br /> roadway. <br /> Mr. Blanske replied to Mr. Sopcinski ' s question of whether he knew <br /> the City ordinance does not permit a residence in a light industrial <br /> district, by saying, he would not insist on this portion .of his <br /> proposal although he felt having a caretaker living in the building <br /> would provide security for the area and be a benefit to the City <br /> in that regard. When Mr. Bjorklund .stated recent court cases <br /> suggesting the City might win its case for rezoning the parcel for <br /> townhouses because Mr. Blanske has not improved his property for <br /> industrial usage, the attorney replied he did not agree with that <br /> assumption but would need to research the matter further before <br /> giving an official opinion. <br /> Questions were then raised whether the facility could-be considered <br /> under warehousing or storage classification and whether some .other <br /> owner might .remove ti,e moveable partitions to develop a large ware- <br /> house there which migi.,.L generate more traffic than the usage proposed <br /> at this time. <br /> In providing Mr. Blanske with a consensus of the concept, -the follow- <br /> ing comments were made by Commission members: <br /> Mr. Sopcinski saw the facility as being surrounded by similar light <br /> industrial developments on adjacent properties - felt the plan might <br /> increase the serenity of the adjacent .land which has private residences <br /> viewed this as -an .industrial usage with minimum traffic and the <br /> addition of the resident caretaker .apartment -as providing security. <br /> to the area. Mrs. Makowske .saw -the-advocating of "-singl-e ' family dwellings <br /> on this property as a feasible land use as not being realistic and <br /> -thought -the mini-storage facility could be amenable to the townhouses <br /> adjacent to it. She Said Mr.. Blanske has always protected the concept <br />