CC 01-30-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I . . . Minutes of the Arden Hills Special Council Meeting, 1-30-91 Page 2 INTERIM USE (Cont'd) 3. Due to the 1lUlltiple components of the operation, none of which is a principal use, special action =uld be taken to allow the use as a permitted ''mixed-use facility". 'lb.e present ordinance does not discuss such 1lUllti-use, single tenant situations, however, Section V,C of the Zoning Code includes a provision that allows a recarmnendation fram Planning Conunission to Council to determine whether = not a proposed use falls within a permitted use and/= special use category. 4. Allow as a Continuation of the Previous Principal User - ''Mayflower Moving and storage". The previous use became a nonconforIlliD3" use when the property was rezoned fram 1-2 to B-2. If a nonconfonning use is rli<:r'f"\ntinued f= a one-year period, it shall not be allowed to start up again unless it confOJ::1llS to regulations; Mayflower occupied the premises until May 31, 1990, therefore, a continuation of a smlar use would be permitted pri= to May 31, 1991. The Planner reported that he discussed the above options with Attorney John Miller, an associate of City Attorney Jerry Filla, and Miller indicated options #3 or #4 would be acceptable for Council consideration. Miller also indicated he preferred option #3, which is addressed in the zoning Code urrler Section V,C. Bergly advised he toured the facilities this ~y currently leases in New Brighton and was inqJressed with the operation; it is apparent Zeos has out grown the facilities and needs additional space and parking to aCCOllll\lOdate employees. 'lb.e Planner explained the operation is less intense than the normal warehousing uses; it appears to be more of an office type setting. Representatives fram Zeos International, James streicker and Bill Barkley, and property owner Scott Roberts were present to answer any questions. Councilmember Mahowald questioned the rationale for expediting this request and not following the normal procedures. Bill Barkley explained the ~y need for additional space and centralization of inventory to meet the growing denand for the product. He explained the Lexington Avenue facility has two tenants and the property owner preferred to allow some time for notification to the existing tenants that their lease will not be renewed and time to find relocation facilities. Mayor Sather advised that the Planning Commission would normally review such requests, however, the regular Planning meeting scheduled for February was cancelled. He note:i that Council has the final authority to role on Planning recarmnendations and although it has always been consensus of Council that it is not preferable to bypass the Conunission, Council has occasionally taken those responsibilities. eouncilmember Mahowald expressed concern that a precedent will be set which allows applicants to bypass the regular process of review by Planning Commission and that all aspects of the long tenn irrpact of this decision have not been fully reviewed by staff and Council. He also stated there does not appear to sufficient rationale to make an exception fram the review process. eouncilmember Malone agreed with processing requests through the proper procedures, however, he note:i in this instance the review is f= a tenant to occupy a existing building, not a developer proposing to construct a new facility with a nonconforIlliD3" use.