10-17-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved that is adjacent to other cities, it must be looked at regionally. Zisla stated that he does not find Mounds View’s comments compelling. O’Brien replied that he would like to know why they made those statements, what is behind them. Zisla recommended that the Commission review the Findings of Fact before a motion is made. He added that he has more concern with the rezoning and Comprehensive Plan than the site plan. Baker inquired if they could deny the Comprehensive Plan and then deny the others because the Comprehensive Plan was denied. Fernelius replied that they could do that. Zisla asked if staff could talk with the Cities attorney to make sure that is a legally correct. Fernelius replied that he planned to talk to the City attorney about it. Zisla suggested that 9g be struck, and add the comment that the application was not complete, did not include a height variance application. Fernelius stated that when an application is denied, it must have an explanation why it was denied and recommends that the Commission state why the site plan is being rejected. O’Keefe recommended that H have a word change of will negatively impact to may negatively impact. Baker suggested that they add a G that states: “There is not sufficient detail in the submittal to do a full evaluation of the plan including a dust control plan.” Zisla recommended “the proposed use requires a height variance and there is no application for a height variance included, therefore there was nothing upon which to grant to make the findings necessary to give a variance.” Fernelius stated that he understands the Commission would like to strike G and H and the first bullet point would be: “The lack of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning, and in incomplete application related to a height variance that was not requested and lack of details regarding processing equipment.” Zisla questioned what would happen if the Council decides to rezone the property and amended the Comprehensive Plan and there is no comment on the special use permit. Baker stated that he would believe that the Council would send it back to the Planning Commission because of the lack of detail on the site plan. Fernelius stated that the Commission will need to make a finding in relation to the special use standards. Zisla recommended that the wording be changed from could not be satisfied to were not satisfied in number 12. Baker recommended that b also be struck. W Motion by Baker, Second by Schiferl AIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE ATTACHED RD CM2006-001,RZ2006-006,LP2006-007, ESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ENIAL OF SP2006-013Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Special Use Permit and to Allow a Hot-Mix Asphalt and Ready-Mix Concrete Production Facility. MOTION APPROVED. 6 Ayes, 0 Nays. Adjournment _________________________________________ Grant Fernelius, Director of Community Development I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\10-17-2006.docPage 9 of 9