Laserfiche WebLink
Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Acting Chairperson Deemer, Commissioners Anderson, LaDue, <br />Jensen, and Wivoda. Voting No: None. Absent: Chairperson Bawden. <br /> <br />Acting Chairperson Deemer stated the Planning Commission previously recommended that the <br />building be erected in a rotated fashion so that the entrance and noise would be further away from <br />neighboring properties. However, City Council changed the recommendation due to an estimated <br />$40,000 expense to alter the proposed plan. He suggested all the dirt be hauled offthe property <br />as the proposed building is already tall enough and a variance was required for the 44' 8" height. <br /> <br />Tom Dillon, Dunbar Development Corporation, explained previous topographical information <br />was inaccurate. When the site survey was received, it was smaller than originally stated. He <br />noted some of the field information had also changed. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner LaDue, to recommend that City <br />Council approve the proposed conditional use permit to export soils from the senior housing site, <br />based on the amended findings of fact, and adopt Resolution 98-10-XXX declaring terms as <br />proposed. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Acting Chairperson Deemer requested hauling trucks enter from Dysprosium <br />Street NW and exit onto County Road 5. City Engineer Jankowski stated preference that hauling <br />trucks not have access onto a County road. He stated if the County road is required, it would <br />need to be done in conformance with a permit issued by the County. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Commissioners Anderson, LaDue, Jensen, and Wivoda. Voting <br />No: Acting Chairperson Deemer. Absent: Chairperson Bawden. <br /> <br />Case #6: Request for Site Plan Review of C.R. Concrete Design; Case of Rick <br /> Burnham <br /> <br />Community Development Director Sherman explained the applicant is seeking site plan review to <br />develop a 12,960 square foot office/warehouse building on Armstrong Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 83). <br />The development is proposed on Lot 1, Block 1, HY-10 Ramsey 2nd Addition. The property is <br />located in the area which was recently included in a development moratorium. The moratorium <br />became effective on September 28. This application was submitted on September 25 prior to the <br />moratorium becoming effective. However, the moratorium language states that the City will not <br />approve any applications while the moratorium is in effect unless an exception to the moratorium <br />is granted. She stated staff does not believe an exception is warranted in this case. The draft <br />Comprehensive Plan identifies this parcel as a potential area for change from the current <br />regulations and therefore any approvals would not be in keeping with the intent of the moratorium <br />which is to protect the planning process. <br /> <br />Mr. Burnham indicated approaching the City prior to the moratorium being proposed and meeting <br />or exceeding requirements needed for development of his property. He indicated he was in the <br />process of purchasing the property in June, 1998, and had it surveyed under the assumption that it <br /> <br />Planning Commission/October 6, 1998 <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />