HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1982-186CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meetinq of the City Council of
the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 19th day of .�� �ril 1982.
The following members were present: Mayor Davenport, Councilmembersooen,Schnneide —
The of owing members were absent: Councilmember Hoyt
t**
tst
�inr;lmcmher Thrpinpn introduced the following Resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 82- 186
DENYING REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AND RPUD CONCFPT PLAN FOR DICrMAN
KNUTSON FOR WAYZATA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY (82003)
WHEREAS, Dickman Knutson on behalf of Wayzata Bank and Trust Company has requested
approval of an amendment to the City's Land Use Guide Plan and of a Residential PlanneA
Unit Development Concept Plan for property located west of Pineview Lane, 1/4 mile
south of County Road 47; 1/2 mile north of Soo Line Railroad tracks; and, 1/4 mile east
of I-494; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said requests at a duly called Public
Hearing, and has recommended denial;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVE') BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF CITY OF PLYMOfrrv,
MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the requests of Dickman Knutson on
behalf of Wayzata Bank and Trust Company for an amendment to the Land Use Guide Plan
for a portion of the site from LA -1 to LA -3, and for an RPUD Concept Plan on property
located west of Pineview Lane, 1/4 mile south of County Road 47, 1/2 mile north of goo
Line Railroad tracks, and 1/4 mile east of I-494 for the following reasons:
1. The Comprehensive Plan Locational Criteria for the LA -3 _assification
are not satisfied;
2. The increased density and resulting increased sewage fl y results in
lack of sewer capacity for other land in the area given development prior
to the installation of the proposed Elmcreek Interceptor, as addressed in
the City Engineer's Memorandum;
3. The submitted RPUD Concept Plan is based upon the density of the proposed
reguiding;
4. The layout and design do not reflect the expected attributes of a Planned
Unit Development per the Zoning Ordinances and the property as presently
guided could be considered for development as an RPUD.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
CguncilmeMber Moen , and upon vote being taken tberepn, the
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor avenport*, Councilmembers Moen, Schneider
The following voted against or abstained: none
whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.