10-17-2006 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Motion by O'Brien, Second by Schiferl to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, MOTION CARRIED. Baker stated that the reasons that the consultant gave for the approval of an asphalt plant are reasons that were given for the approval of the Belair Special Use Permit. He added that he does not believe that location is good for an asphalt plant and the City has already allowed a use on the property that would not normally be allowed in a Light Industrial area because of the circumstances of the site. O'Brien stated that he wished the City of Mounds View had a representative this meeting since they have written a letter objecting to the application. Fernelius stated that he had received a telephone from the Mayor of Mounds View asking if the City had received their letter. The Mayor wanted to be at the meeting, but had a prior arrangement. Zisla inquired if they had given any reasons for their stance or is it just their opinion. Fernelius replied that all they submitted was the letter; there is no information beyond that. Howard stated that he would like to know what the thought patterns were for that site when the last Comprehensive Plan was done in 1999. Baker stated that Belair was on the site when the last Comprehensive Plan was completed and as far as he was concerned the land was developed. Zisla asked if Belair did not have the special use permit would the current activities of outdoor storage and crushing be allowed through a non-conforming use permit. Fernelius replied that the outdoor storage would be allowed as a non-conforming use. The 1991 Special Use permit for Belair was for outdoor storage only; the crushing component was not included. He added that the question that is triggering the rezoning is if this is an expansion of the use. While there are elements that will remain the same, there is an intensification of the use, which includes the asphalt and concrete production. Those are elements that are not included in the original special use permit and would not be included with a special use permit in a Light Industrial area, which triggers the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. This is an intensification of the use beyond what was originally approved. Zisla asked if the current use is inconsistent with current Comprehensive Plan. Fernelius replied that the current site has a special use permit that allows those activities, however without the special use permit the use would not be allowed in the I1 district. Zisla stated that it is not just the intensification of use, but by approving what is in the application the Commission is basically stating that seventy-foot silos will be approved. Fernelius replied that there is nothing in the application that talks about seventy foot silos. Zisla stated that once you approve the rezoning, the site plan, and Comprehensive Plan amendment it would be difficult to not allow the silos, which is needed to run the business. Howard asked for a clarification of the inconsistency between the opportunities for new develop requirement in the special use permit and in the Comprehensive Plan. He is wondering if the City believes the site could be developed into something else. Fernelius replied that he did not research any discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan for this property. However, in the late 1980's there were two applications for trucking terminals, C:\Documents and Settings\jgoepe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK28\10-17-2006.doc Page 7 of 9