HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1975-188CITY OF PLYMOUTH
10 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, ameeting of the City
Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the _ 21st day
of �(�April ,1975 . The following me.nbers were present:Acting
aY�l�' elbold and 4paath
he o owing members were a sent: Mavor Hilde
***
***
**
introduced the following Resolution and
moved Its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 75-188
DENYING REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM R-0 TO R-1 AND
R-3 AT SE CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 47 AND PINEVIEW LANE
WHEREAS, Mendota, Inc. has requested rezoning of property from R-0 to R-1 (approxi-
mately 28.15 acres) and R-3 (approximately 4.5 acres) located at the SE Corner of
County Road 47 and Pineview Lane, and
WHEREAS, the Plymouth City Planning Commission has reviewed said request and has
recommended denial in a report submitted to this Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA that the request of Mendota, Inc. for rezoning of said property from R-0
to 9-1 and R-3 be denied for the following reasons:.
With respect to the R-0 to R-1:
1) Proposed rezoning violates the intent of City Council
Resolution 73-37 which states development should not occure
in areas not served by public utilities.
2) Proposal is inconsistent with City's Goals, Objectives and
Criteria (Goal A. Objective 3, Criteria public
'services on site improvements shall be completed at time
of residential development."
With respect to the R -O to R-3:
1) Proposed rezoning violates the intent of City Council Resolution
73-37 which states development should not occur in areas not
served by public utilities.
2)' Proposal is inconsistent with City's Goals, Objectives and _
Criteria (Goal A. Objective 3, Criteria public ublic services
on S to improvements shall be completed at time of residential
development."
3) Inconsistency of the proposed General Development Plan with the
provisions of Section 17, Subdivision 3, Paragraph 1 of the
Zoning Ordinance, particularly items b., c., d., f., g. and h.
IS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilman Neils. and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Acting Mayor Hunt. Councilmen Mils. Seibold and Spaeth. The following
voted against or abstained: none. Whereupon, the Resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
*,r�r