02 - Anderson Brothers Appeal - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Barajas recommended tabling to work with Staffto develop findings of fact. Mr. Marohn recommended the motion be withdrawn until the City Attorney can develop findings of fact. Mr. Williams added the following Findings of Fact, seconded by Mr. Derksen,to support the motion to deny: 1. The use or development does not conform to the comprehensive land use plan. 2. The use is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. 3. The use with conditions would be injurious to the public health, safety,welfare, decency, order,comfort,convenience, appearance or prosperity of the City. 4. The conditional use will impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. 5. Adequate measures cannot be taken to prevent or control offensive odor,fumes, dust,noise, and vibration, so none of these will constitute a nuisance and to control lights and signs in such a manner,that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. 6. The conditional use will not promote the prevention and control of pollution of the ground and surface waters including sedimentation and control of nutrients. 7. The conditional use will result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historical feature of major significance. 8. The proposed use has the potential to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of existing residences in the area. All of the residences are at least 500 feet from the project site,but associated project noise from general operations has the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of the nearby lake properties. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Habein: Aye;Mr. Williams: Aye;Mr. Hallam: Nay;Mr. Varilek: Aye;Mr. Pederson: Aye; Mr. Derksen: Aye. Motion carried. 5— 1. SHORT RECESS: Meeting reconvened at 10:13 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: Valerie Dwight Wetland Application. Mr. and Mrs. Dwight were in attendance. Mr. Marohn explained the Staff Report. The Planning Commission had several questions regarding the TEP recommendation. He also advised the Planning Commission that there would be after-the-fact fees and staff fees in addition to the TEP recommendation. Staff was directed to check and see if we can increase TEP recommendations and if they need to be included on the fee schedule. A motion was made by Mark Hallan, seconded by Scott Pederson,to accept the TEP recommendation for wetland replacement and Crow Wing County 4:1 ratio, assess a penalty of 5 times to$500.00,plus Staff expenses not to exceed$400.00 and monies would go into the Lake Education Fund. All members voted"aye". Motion carried. Planning Commission 6 November 17,2005