CC 11-14-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting November 14, i977 Page three and legality of issuing permit. Wingert reviewed Lynden's opinion of November II, 1977; said he feels current status is non-conforming and that the suggested Inter- pretations of the Zoning Ordinance to make this conforming are weak. One alternative to make this use conforming would be to rezone. to Heavy Industry which would require that definitions of heavy industry would have to be provided in Ordinance No. 99. Second alternative would be to amend Ordinance No. 99 to allow a rendering plant as a permitted use with a Special Use Permit In the L-I zone. He noted that Minneapo~ls Hide and Tallow has tried to reduce nuisance objections to a rendering plant by Installing . poi lution control equipment. Lynden concurred that textual amend- ment Initiated by applicant, Village or Planning Commission could list rendering plant as permitted with Special Use Permit. Wellington Tully, attorney for applicant, said he feels that since the present ordinance permits office buildings In L-I zone, a build- Ing perml~ for the office building could be Issued; would like to start cOnstruction as soon as possible and time Involved In amend- ment to Ordinance and Special Use Permit procedure would delay start of construction until neXT spri r.g. Wingert said he felt it was an expansion of the rendering plant; are not tearing down old building; office faciiltles are part of administration of rendering plant. Crichton asked If current build- Ing Is separate parcel. Miller said, Yes; noted also that some renderIng plant bulldlngoveriaps property I fnes. Discussion foiiowed concerning hearings held at the time property was annexed from New Brighton; New Brighton zoning was Heavy Industry and Roberg did not object to Arden HI! is rezoning to L-I. Roberg said his remarks In i97i may have been m!slnterpreted; weren't using al I the property and didn't object to unused portion beIng l-I. It was further noted that long range plans for business may call for new rendering plant; preferable to solve conformity problem now. Hanson moved, seconded by Woodburn, that action on the building . permit be tabled TO the next meeting pending decision of applicant tv request textual amendment to Zoning Ordinance and application for 8 Speclai Use Permit. Motion carried unanimously. Case No. 77-51, Parkln~ Lot Expansion - I.C. Systems Planner Miller noted that requested expansion does not represent excessive site coverage; dra~nage pattern will not be altered; Planning Commission recommends approval, subject to two conditions. Crichton asked If this would Inhibit the VilCage pathway plan In the area. Mllier said It would not. Wingert moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Council approve the parking lot expansion and re- vised site pian, subject to: I. RQundlng of the access drive corner curb and extension of the curb to the west to abut the timber curb, which bor- ders the entire parking lot. . 2. Landscaping as per p~an submitted (il-I-77). 3. No Interference ~!th the east-west pathway connection. Motion carried unanimously. Case No. 71-41. Special U~e Permit and Variance for Duplex - Marlyn Tramm Planner Miller reviewed his memos of October 4th and November 1st, noting that lot Is In R-2 zone and Is of adequate size, located on Cleveland Avenue; is a reasonable iocation for a duplex; as sited wouid require a 10 fT. rear yard variance. Counc II reviewed eleva- tions, noted that City owns a 50 ft. strip of land at the rear of property; Planning Commission recommends approval, subject to drive- way changes.and landscapIng. Woodburn moved, seconded by Wingert, that Counci~ approve the Special Use Permit for the duplex, a 10 ft. rear yard variance, d rlve- way to be 20 ft. wide at the lot line, plantlngs commensurate with single faml "I landscaping in area to be admln1stratlv!9ijy rG'vl&~'9ot by Planner. Moti'>l1carde..; ufllHlimously, -,-