10-17-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved while neither proposal came forward. Despite how the site is being used, the Comprehensive Plan is still guiding it as Light Industrial. The principals that were talked about relate to broad goals for Commercial and Industrial sites and the type of uses The City would like to see come into the community. The staff feels that the “compatible with the natural environment” requirement in the special use guide lines have not been met and the additional information that was presented to night to control the odor, dust and silos are new this evening and if the Commission directs staff can look more into these proposals, but this is first that staff has heard about them and are not part of this proposal. Baker stated that the original application for Belair included the capping of the landfill and as a result they were granted the approval for storage on site as a special use permit since there could not be a building placed on the site because of the thirty-five feet of fill. While it was not an intensive use of the site, it was a good mix that allowed them to make use of the site. Fernelius stated that as a comparison there is a dump in the Northwest Quadrant, while it is not a capped landfill, it is not preventing redevelopment of the site; it just makes it more complicated. Zisla stated that there has been a fundamental change since the application was first approved; because of the Northwest Quadrant development has changed the out look for the area. He added that Midwest Asphalt stated that there were no other locations for their company to move to and understands that the City bought out this location. He stated that he is having a difficult time understanding why the Belair location will now work. O’Brien asked the applicant how they will be able to support a seventy foot silo when it’s built over a landfill. Steingline replied that they most likely would do pilings. O’Brien stated that it wouldn’t be anymore expensive to construct a building on the site than to place the silos. Henderson stated that it’s a smaller foot print than a building, and the height is a trade off for smaller foot print rather than lower silos with a larger foot print. Steingline added that it would be very difficult to sell a building constructed over a landfill. Chambers replied that a portion of their site sits on top of the dump and they put thirty-five foot pilings to construct to their addition. Schiferl stated that he does not recall a lot of discussion when the proposal came forward, there was discussion regarding the effects on the park, and it was decided that the I1 was compatible with the park. He added that this is an open and shut case, they have use of the site, and it’s compatible with the I1. Zisla stated that he is concerned about the seventy-foot silo, and compatibility with the park. He added that this is an intensive expansion of the current use and the more he looks at the Northwest Quadrant and the fact the silos would most likely be seen from there. Baker added that there would be an increase of truck traffic on the small site also, and wonders about the impact of truck traffic on the site. Zisla stated that he does not agree with that concern. Howard asked if the Comprehensive Plan is changed for this one site does the City run the risk of spot zoning. Fernelius replied that he does not think that would be an issue with this application. O’Brien stated that he is concern about doing anything without more input from the City of Mounds View. He added that when guiding redevelopment I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\10-17-2006.docPage 8 of 9