HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 1990-545CITY or PLU409TH
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, was held on the 10th day of
Sgptember. 1990 The following members were present: mayor Berym$nr
Qouncilmembera Helliwell, Ricker, Vasiliou, and Zitur
The following members were absent:
Councilmember Ricker introduced the following Resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 90-545
DENYING LAND USE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR RYAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR
"WATERFORD PARR PLAZA 2ND ADDITION" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF 6TH
AVENUE NORTH AND REVERE LANE (90052) (MPUD 86-1)
WHEREAS, Ryan Construction Company has requested approval for a Land Use Guide
Plan amendment to z. -classify 1.2 acres of property, a portion of Out -lot A,
Waterford Park Plaza, located at the northeast quadrant of 6th Avenue North
and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) District to CS (Service Business;
District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the request following a duly
scheduled Public Hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OE THE CITY OF
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does deny the reclassification
of land use guiding for Ryan Construction Company for "Waterford Park Plaza
2nd Addition" for approximately 1.2 acres located at the northeast quadrant of
6th Avenue North and Revere Lane from CL (Limited Business) District to CS
(Service Business) District, for the following reasons:
1. The existing classification (CL) is more responsive than the proposed
classification (CS) to the locational characteristics of the site,
specifically the "gateway" characteristic.
2. No lack of developed or undeveloped land of the CS classification has been
demonstrated.
3. Existing developed and undeveloped land in the CS and CR classification
will be negatively affected by this reclassification.
4. The requested action would constitute "spot" guiding and thus, "spot"
zoning which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives
and Criteria.
5. The proposed classification does not constitute the highest and beat use
of the property.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded
by Councilmember Zitur , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Helliwell, Ricker,___
and Zitur
The following voted against or abstained Mayor Bergman and Councilmember
Vaailiou. Whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.