HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 08-26 PCP Pl,/-),NN.TNG COMWSSION A"GENDA
STUDY MEETUNTG
Augia.ist 26, 1976
8-00 P.M
2 ,
3, -Appr-�val cl Nlinuites: August 12 , 1976
4 , Resc"hitium Regarding Rccommended Jlli'ct)iuri on Appl!cation No.
s of Applic.-ation No. 76041 submitted by Irvleadow Corp.
Repot on Statu
T.1isc%,issicn ItL--ms-
d. Ordinance Standards Relative to Single Family Attached Dwellings
b. Ordinance Standards fRelative to Flashing Signs
Rr iiieiiv "caning Matter,,M Referred by City council
d. Pending Rems
7, Other Bus-Lness-
AdjournmerA,
RESOLUTION RETLA771VE TO RV-_"OMM1J"NDED DISPOSITIOINT OF
pig"ININ-11,R21 COA4MISSIONT APPLICATION NO. '76034 SUBMITTED
BY BR(_)0!KI.YN CEINTER 1-NIDUSTRIAL P&RK, iCORPORATEQ
oklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. submitted Application No.
760J34 or, Z-Aay 13, 1976, requesting rezoning, from R3 to I-1 , of the tract of land.
bounde'-1 by T-9":A "oldi, ?1.e.-.�esAvenue, Shingle Creek Parkway, and by "new"
,..er,-,Ies Pvenue; and
WH"EREAS, the petition was considered by the Commission at the duly
called p�,blic hearing on June 10, 1976 when fe-stimony both for and against the
request heard? and
W11
-EREAS, the iteirt was cabled an,�� referred to the Northwest Neighborhood
Advisory Gircupwho recommended denial of the request in a letter- dated July 8, 1976
which wes submitted to the file; and
VV�EEREEAS, 4he Commission reconsidered the request on August 12 , 1976,
when additional testimony was heard and a petition in opposition to the request
was I-ecei-iied from residents "west of the subject Property; and
WFIEREAS, the request was reviewed in terms of the Comprehensive Plan;
the current master street and utility plans for the Industrial Park; and of the amount
of T-1 zoned, land yet to be developed-
OW, ThTRET ORE, _98E IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission
of the City of '13cook Alyn Center to recommend to the City Council dental of
Application No. 75034. submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, inc. , citing
the
is not a demonstrable public nee-d for additional I-1
A. There
zoned land at this time;
The evidence presented indicates eXpainsion of the Industrial
Park through the rezoning at this location is not M the best
interests of the noighborho-_,d;
3. Abutment- o.'F industrial and po sible high-intensity commercial
land uses against, single family reside.-atial areas is not
consistent with sound planning principles;
4� The proposal is not consistent with the development guidelines
for this area set forth in the Coru.prehensive Plan;
5 . Neighboring residential pfopert-Aly o-,%,ners have submitted a
Petition oppOsing the reque-st;
- 'ter �,,�as cevi,evved in detail "by the Northwest Neighborhood
0 The mat
Advisory Group w1ho recommended denial.
1r
�.
III