Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Member Capra questioned whether the business needed a Special Use Permit to <br />continue its operation. City Attorney Hoeft explained the Special Use Permit was <br />brought up as a way to allow the current owner to somehow expand or intensify the <br />business. The City would be able to better control the operation through the special use <br />permit process. If the business continues to operate as it currently does, there is no need <br />for a Special Use Permit. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg questioned whether intensification of the business could happen <br />without involving the building. City Attorney Hoeft indicated there may be a possibility <br />of this happening; however it would require investigation to determine whether it was an <br />expansion or intensification. <br /> <br />Mayor Swedberg questioned whether the Rice Creek Watershed District would be <br />interested in purchasing the floodway property. Mr. March indicated he did not believe <br />they would. Mayor Swedberg directed Staff to contact Rice Creek Watershed District to <br />ascertain if they would be interested in purchasing same. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft explained the City's Comprehensive Plan does take precedence over the City's <br />zoning plan. This is a change as it used to be the zoning plan took precedence over the <br />Comprehensive Plan and the plan went along for the ride. If the Comprehensive Plan <br />denotes the property as Commercial, it does so because a commercial use for that <br />property is a better buffer between the Residential area and the intensified roadway. <br />Council does need to follow the Comprehensive Plan in this instance. The <br />Comprehensive Plan may be amended at any time if Council deems it appropriate; <br />however, it will need to be followed. Mr. Hoeft cautioned Council against spot zoning <br />this piece of property. <br /> <br />Council Member Travis stated the current business owner does not do a considerable <br />amount of business out ofthe building, but previously there had been more activity at the <br />location. He questioned how the City would determine an intensification and what that is <br />based on. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoeft stated that the City would need to look back historically to the point where <br />controls making the use non-conforming were put in place and the level of the activity at <br />that point would be the maximum use for the property. <br /> <br />2. Lloyd Drilling - Site Plan <br /> <br />Council Member Broussard Vickers indicated Mr. Drilling would like direction from <br />Council as to what Council would like to see on the final site plan. Council Member <br />Broussard Vickers stated she would like the berm to come out as far as the Anoka County <br />will allow, she would like the berm to be four (4) feet high with at least a six (6) foot high <br />fence on top, she would like to see a specific plan for how the northwest comer of the <br />property will be landscaped. The developer's agreement will need to specify standards <br />for the trailway. Mr. Drilling questioned whether the standards for the trailway complied <br />with City code. Mr. March indicated he would provide Mr. Drilling with the Anoka <br />County trailway specifications. <br /> <br />Page 11 of 18 <br />