Laserfiche WebLink
w TIP <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2000 <br />(#2555 Hennepin County, Continued) <br />Smith expressed a concern with the size of the proposed facility as well as the need for a <br />zoning amendment. <br />Hawn inquired whether the County has pursued other sites for this facility. <br />Nowlan stated to his knowledge other sites have not been looked at, noting this is the only <br />parcel In the City which is owned by the County. <br />Hawn indicated she would like to see this application tabled to allow Hennepin County some <br />additional time to explore other possible sites for this storage facility. <br />Nowlan stated the advantages to this building include indoor storage of the salt and sand, which <br />would eliminate the runoff into Lake Minnetonka, increased life to the salt and sand by being <br />stored indoors, lower noise level, and fewer deliveries to this site. <br />Stoddard commented he would like to see the height of the building kept at 20 feet, noting he <br />would not be in favor of a height variance for anything over 20 feet. Stoddard noted he is an <br />agreement that this is not the ideal location for this facility. <br />Kluth inquired whether steel trusses inside the building had been considered by Hennepin <br />County. <br />Nowlan stated to his knowledge that has not been explored, noting that due to the salt being <br />stored inside the facility, corrosion may be a factor into why steel was not chosen. <br />Smith suggested this item be tabled to allow the Applicant time to explore other sites for the <br />facility. Smith stated she also has concerns *egarding the size of the building as well as the <br />need for a zoning code amendment <br />Chock remarked it would be difficult for the Hennepin to meet the needs of this area with a <br />smaller sized building. <br />Nowlan stated the County would like to have this building constructed in time for next year's <br />winter season. Nowlan stated if the application is tabled, completion of the building by that <br />time would be questionable. <br />Hawn stated the Applicants can either have the Planning Commission vote on this application <br />as it has been presented tonight or to table the application to allow the County additional time <br />to review other sites. Hawn commented in her view it appears the application will be denied. <br />Nowlan requested the Planning Commission act on this application. <br />The Planning Commission noted the use of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive <br />Plan adopted by the City. <br />Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend denial of Application #2555, <br />Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Zoning Code Amendment, Conditional Use <br />Permit and Variances based upon Issues dealing with the City’s Comprehensive Code <br />and Zoning. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />Page 17 <br />4