Loading...
82-047-050i • r IV: 5/7/82 RESOLUTION NO. G� WHEREAS, IXI Laboratory, (Ron and Dee Johnson), has applied to the City for a general concept approval for a Planned Unit Development on a piece of property located in the South Half of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota as shown on a.map located between pages 3 and 4 in the proposal booklet; and WHEREAS, the application is made and contained in a booklet entilted, "Planned Unit Development Proposal, General Concept Stage, IXI Laboratory, Research Estate, Brauer & Associates Ltd., Inc., December 1981; and WHEREAS, said property is zoned R -1; and L� WHEREAS, said application is made pursuant to Ordinance No. 122, an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 77 and providing a Planned Unit Development District in the City; and WHEREAS, applicant's request is to rezone the property from R -1 to a PUD District; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Planning Commission on January , 1982 and notice was duly published in the official newspaper and mailed notices sent to adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, after the publi hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 abstention to deny said application based on the following factors: "1. The proposed use of the facility to fabricate components of computer related prototypes suggests manufacturing use. Pertaining to "nonresidential use" as mentioned in Ordinance No. 122, Subdivision .2, this phrase implies that the commercial uses of PUD's are intended to be in conjunction with residential portions of the PUD in question; furthermore, the entire ordinance is written with residential implications. 2. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. In addition to the fact that this proposal could lend itselt to a manufacturing type of process in an R -1 District, are the specifics that it is not consistent witht he following: PUD Ordinance - Subdivision 1. Purpose: a., c., f., g. • Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policies, Page 25 -26: #8, #9, #13. Land Use Objectives, Page 27: #2, #4, #9, #15. Land Use Policies, Page 29: #1, #2, #3, #7, #8. Residential Policies, Page 31: #2 and #10. Commercial Policies, Page 33: #12 Industrial Development Policies, Page 34: #3 and #4. L -/ 4. The PUD was not intended initially as a commercial of • industrial use. 5. The traffic problem on Vine Hill is already designated as a problem area. 6. Drainage of the Shady Hills pond area hasn't been addressed. 7. The property is zoned R -1 and is surrounded by R -1 , is not a buffer, and doesn't have transition from land used as R -1 to land used as industrial." WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on April 27, 1982 and notice was duly published in the official newspaper and mailed notices sent to the adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, applicant was present in person at the public hearing and was represented at the hearing by its Planner John A. Worrall and attorney, John E. Lee, Jr.; and WHEREAS, certain neighbors and members present and presented verbal and written comments and WHEREAS, the City Council on motion of Leonardo moved to direct the City Attorney to dra • setting forth findings and conclusions in denying for rezoning to a PUD District. of the public were on the proposal; Haugen, seconded by w a resolution applicant's request NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that it finds the following facts: •1. That the subject property is zoned R -1. 2. That the subject property consists of approximately 20 acres of land fronting on Vine Hill Road. All of the property in the City of Shorewood adjacent to the site is zoned R -1. The property to the north is developed as single family homes. The property to the west and south is undeveloped. The property is hilly, undeveloped wooded and marsh land containing approximately 8 acres of buildable dry land. 3. That the subject property is capable of being developed for approximately ? single family dwellings. 4. That applicant has requested an 11,000 square foot "residential looking" research facility in which the following functions will be performed: INFORMATION LAB: applied research relating to telecommunications and computer technology, with the purpose of discovering more efficient methods of computer communications; ELECTRONICS: design and development of signal acquisition, processing and logic circuits; SMALL MECHANISM: design and development of machine bases, mechanisms, electromechanisms and special fixtures; -2- V • MODEL AND PROTOTYPE SHOP: precision forming and machining for fabrication of design prototypes, field test units, one -of -a -kind units and special fixtures; PNEUMATICS AND HYDRAULICS: design and development of power packages, components and controls for use in high performance test machines and industrial robots; MAGNETICS: research, design and development of systems and components employing magnetic circuits for purposes of information recording, magneto - shaping and physiological research; COMPUTER LAB: for scientific analyses, software development and hardware emulation and simulation; OPTICS: research design and development of optical systems for communications, control and production processes; DRAFTING AND REPRODUCTION: preparation of engineering renderings and drawings; TECHNICAL LIBRARY: storage for and access to 15,000 volumes; PATENT OFFICE: office for full -time, in -house patent attorney and paraprofessional; • GENERAL OFFICE: office for accountant, typist, director and secretary. 5. That the Council finds that the proposal is exclusively commercial `and industrial in nature and has no residential component. 6. That Section 1 of the P.U.D. Ordinance provides the purpose for the P.U.D. Ordinance is as follows: "This District is established to provide comprehensive procedures and standards designed for district planned unit development to allow the development of neighborhoods or portions thereof incorporating a variety of residential types and non - residential uses. Recognizing that traditional density, bulk, setbacks, use and subdivision regulations which may be useful in protecting the character of substantially developed areas, may not be appropriate to control development in less developed areas. Specifically, P.U.D. is intended to encourage: A. Innovations in residential development to the end that the growing demands for housing at all economic levels may be met by greater variety in tenure, type, design, and siting of dwellings and by the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments; • =10 B. Higher standards of site and building design through the use of trained and experienced land planners, architects and • landscape architects; C. More convenience in location of commercial and service areas within a given project or area, allowing more efficient and desirable transitions between residential and nonresidential land uses; D. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; E. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses; F. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lower housing costs and public investments; G. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the City Comprehensive Plan." 7. Subdivision 4. B. of the P.U.D. Ordinance provides that the P.U.D. zone shall be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 8. That the proposal is not consistent with the • Corprehensive Plan which provides that there shall be no further commercial expansion in this R -1 area of the City. 9. That no one from the public spoke in favor of the project. 10. That the proposal does not provide for transition between residential and non - residential land uses, as all the property adjacent to the proposal is residential. 11. That the purpose of the P.U.D. District is to provide for a mix of residential and commercial to serve that residential. The proposal provides only for commercial and no residential use. 12. The type of commercial use proposed by applicant is not the type of commercial contemplated by the ordinance. 13. That in the City Zoning Ordinance, there is no type of use listed as permitted, accessory or conditional in any zone of the City which is similar to the proposed activities as stated by the applicant. (See City Planner's Report dated December 31, 1981) Only those uses which are permitted, accessory or conditional are allowed in the P.U.D. District. The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 14. That the highest and best use for the property is . single family residential. -4- . 15. That it is not in the best interest of the public in general in the neighborhood, specifically, nor for the general health and welfare of the City of Shorewood to rezone this property. CONCLUSIONS That based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Shorewood concludes that the application of IXI Laboratory for a PUD District rezoning as set out hereinabove, be and hereby is denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 10th day of May, 1982. U 0 -5- A i Regular Council Meeting 4 - ATTORNEY'S REPORT: IXI LABORATORY A resolution was submitted to deny the request for a general concept approval for a Planned Unit Development request by IXI Laboratory - (Dee and Ron Johnson). Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to adopt the resolution as submitted. Roll call vote - 5 ayes. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT Amendment to the Contractual Agreement for Amesbury West was presented to allow the construction of a swimming pool, tennis court, and access road. Leonardo moved to approve the amendment seconded by Gagne. Motion carried - 3 ayes, 2 abstained (Shaw - Haugen). r� MODEL CIVIL DEFENSE ORDINANCE A model ordinance was submitted for a Civil Defense Plan. Council directed staff to research and find appointment to Civil Defense Planner. ENGINEER'S REPORT Request was made by Mac -In -Erny Inc. for final payment for the Boulder Bridge Farm Pumphouse - Project #80- WTP -2. Engineer Norton indicated the final payment would be made to Mac -In -Erny Inc. when he provides a signed lien waiver from all sub - contractors and a statement from the State of Minnesota indicating they have no taxes due. May 10, 1982 RESOLUT NO. 49 -82 Adoption of a resolution to change the city voting precinct lines because of the new State Legislative District Boundaries was pre - sented by the City Clerk. Haugen moved to approve new precinct divisions as submitted by accompanying map. Seconded by Shaw. Roll call vote - 5 ayes. Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 11 CHANGE OF VOTING PRECINCTS 21 ALLOCATION OF YEAR VIII CDBG FUNDS jWS0L'UT `,,< 82 Recommendations for the allocation of Year VIII CDBG Funds were made by the Administrator. 1) 8,000. - Comprehensive Plan Process and Codification of City Ordinances 2) 16,000. - Housing Rehabilitation 3) 9,055. - Tree Removal Grants 4) 8,000. - Special Assessment Grants (Sewer &Water Improvements) Moved by Shaw, seconded by Gagne, to approve the allocation of the suggested funds. 4 ayes, l abstain (Haugen) - Motion carried.