Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Council Meeting, 4-8-91 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />REzctITNG (Cont'd) <br /> <br />CouncilInember Malone questioned if an SUP expires if the <br />existing use is discontinued for a one year period. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla answered in the affinnative that a special use permit expires if <br />the existing use of the property is discontinued for a period of one year. He <br />noted that the ordinances are subject to change and what is nOftl a permitted use <br />could ~ a nonconfonning use. <br /> <br />Attorney Dave Sellegren, representing Tim Tyson and Bill Franke, was present and <br />stated Attorney Filla did an excellent job of interpreting the intent of the <br />property owner to insure continuation and expansion of the present use with the <br />same ratios that exist at this time. <br /> <br />Sellegren explained the future expansion of the site is dependent on maintaining <br />the site use relationship that =ently exists and that those ratios be fixed in <br />the context of the SUP process. <br /> <br />Council1nember Malone questioned which accessory uses =ently exist at the <br />facility that need to be maintained. <br /> <br />Sellegren advised truck parking and lift truck repair are accessory uses at the <br />Tyson site and the applicant is concerned that such uses are maintained. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Attorney Filla explained conditions relating to the accessory uses may be defined <br />and regulated in the special use permit, after the accessory uses are identified. <br />Filla advised he is not opposed to the language proposed by the property owner as <br />long as the date of adoption of the ordinance is included in the paragraph and <br />explained the ratio of existing uses on the site will be preserved by the special <br />use permit regulations. <br /> <br />The Attorney recc:mnnen::led action be taken on both ordinances and suggested Council <br />determine which language is to be inserted in the original text of Ordinance No. <br />277, Section VIII (K) (4) (e), to address the concerns of the Tyson property; <br />reviewed the three alternatives f= amending the text, as outlined in his letter <br />dated 4-5-91 and the proposed language distriblted as a handout this evening. <br />He advised that adoption of the ordinances ra:prires four votes by Council. <br /> <br />CouncilInember Malone noted the discussion at the Planning CCtnmission meeting <br />relative to the property owner's ~ition to ra:priring application for a <br />special use permit and questioned if the property owner still is opposed to this <br />ra:prirement. <br /> <br />Attorney Sellegren advised that Council bas addressed those concerns this evening <br />and the opposition to applying for the special use permit is eliminated since the <br />ratios of uses will be fixed in the SUP process. <br /> <br />Council1nember Hansen questioned if the other property owners in the 1-2 category, <br />south of the railroad tracks, expressed any concern regarding the rezoning of <br />their parcels. <br /> <br />Planner Bergly advised the other property owners did not appear at the public <br />. hearing and no co=esponience was received expressing opposition to the rezoning. <br />