Laserfiche WebLink
• Mr. Daubney agreed that the ordinance could not be tailored to fit <br /> the Hedlund Property but was willing to work with the City Attorney <br /> on a viable alternative which might provide a wider range of possi- <br /> bilities. <br /> The Mayor then called for a motion reacting to the Board's recommenda- <br /> tion regarding the rezoning request. <br /> Motion by Councilman Sundland and seconded by Councilman Sauer to <br /> deny the request from Gordon Hedlund to rezone to "C" (Commercial) the <br /> west 187 feet of Lot 10 and the west 147 feet of Lots 11 through 16 , <br /> Block 6 , Mounds View Acres, Second Addition. <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> Mr. Vickrey then said the ordinance had been written with the under- <br /> standing that there might be some changes in the percentage of commer- <br /> cial allowed under the "PUD" but said "all the controls which are <br /> necessary are already in the ordinance" . He told Mr. Daubney that he <br /> saw no legal questions which had to be worked out at this point. The <br /> Mayor affirmed this point saying "he (the City Attorney) is not about <br /> to put arbitrary numbers or uses into the ordinance without Council <br /> direction" . He said he felt the consensus of the Council was not to <br /> rewrite the City zoning ordinance in total for the benefit of the <br /> Hedlund property but they could at least agree to discuss some vari- <br /> ances for commercial development. <br /> • Councilman Haik said the only request they had to consider was for <br /> commercial development and she did not feel the Council knew enough <br /> about "what the concept was the petitioners were proposing" and could <br /> see no merit in involving the staff in working on a proposal for greater <br /> commercial usage of this land than is already allowed in the zoning <br /> ordinance. The new ordinance had been written, she said, after many <br /> proposals for the development of this particular portion of land had <br /> been considered and had been set up to categorically prohibit the <br /> buffering of "commercial by commercial" . It was her contention that <br /> the new zoning ordinance provided an alternative to the use of the land <br /> only for residential when the "light office" classification had been <br /> set up. <br /> Mr. Daubney said there is no demand for an office park of the size of <br /> this parcel. He said his concept would call for a use somewhat less <br /> than commercial but more than service office. Councilman Sundland <br /> said he could see approving an agreement which would control usage but <br /> all he could see in Mr. Dale' s plan were three block buildings suggest- <br /> ing density on the land and Mr. Dale affirmed that the buildings were <br /> only conceptual. The councilman then said he would be willing to <br /> have the City staff work with the developer and attorney for Mr. Hedlund <br /> on a plan which could be fitted into an acceptable PUD but wanted it <br /> understood that any use proposed must be of low intensity which would <br /> help the surrounding area and not hinder it. He said he could favor <br /> is <br /> (3) <br /> I <br />