Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 4-8-91 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />REZONING (Cont'd) <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone noted the proposed Ordinance No. 278 <br />does not include language to a=nplish the 1-2 to B-2 <br />rezoning of the parcels south of the railroad tracks. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla advised the Pugleasa property am the other parcel were <br />inadvertently excluded. He explained Section IV.A. (3) should include the Pugleasa <br />site am the other property currently zoned 1-2 = language could be inserted in <br />the ordinance which includes all property south of the railroad tracks are in a <br />B-2 zoning classification. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla referred to the proposed rezoning of the Tyson property am <br />explained that when the rezoning of property :imposes restrictions on the use of <br />that property, the City must consider the impact on the parcel of lam being <br />restricted. He advised the restrictions must be detennmed reasonable am the use <br />of the lam must remain reasonable after adoption of the new regulations. Filla <br />reviewed the two properties am explained that the rezoning will not i1rp:Jse <br />unreasonable regulations on either site. He explained a variance could be granted <br />for the Pugleasa site to a=nmodate the accessory use. <br /> <br />The Attorney discussed the Tyson property am the impact the rezoning regulations <br />will have on this site. He advised the proposed wording on page 2 of his letter <br />dated 4-5-91, Section 3 (f), allows the continuation of the warehousing use of <br />this facility, requires the issuance of a Special Use Pennit am requires the <br />property owner to apply f= an amendment to the Special Use Pennit, prior to <br />expansion of the existing facility. Filla stated the =ent use of the facility <br />will not change, as the wording in paragraph (f) allows the expansion of the <br />permitted/existing uses as long as the ratio of uses does not change. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla noted the wording proposed on the handout received by Council this <br />evening, as drafted by legal counsel for the property owner, is basically the <br />sarne, with the additional language ... "related accessory uses". He explained the <br />=ent ordinance allows f= 30 percent related accesSQry use to be permitted. <br />Filla explained the special use permit is attached to the land am would serve to <br />provide same measure of guarantee to the property owner that the ratio of use <br />which exists at this time will remain. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone questioned why maintenance of the floor area ratio is <br />essential f= this property. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla noted the original wording proposed did not address the concerns <br />of the property owner as to future use of this site. He explained that if the <br />existing facility has a 93 percent warehousing use, that will be allowed to <br />continue even if the new regulations provide for only 50 percent warehousing use. <br />He indicated the property owner retains the 93 percent ratio for future expansion <br />of the facility am is requesting the special use permit specify those <br />percentages of use. Filla advised that all three proposals for wording would be <br />permissible. <br /> <br />Councilmember Mahowald questioned if there is a process f= revoking the SUP. <br /> <br />Filla stated that if the con:litions of the SUP are not satisfied, a public <br />hearing is conducted am the SUP could be revoked. He explained the Special Use <br />Pennit issuance is not automatic am the property owner will suhnit an <br />application which inventories existing uses am provides a site plan for base <br />data am future c:arrparison purposes, for review by the Plarming Commission am <br />Council. <br />