Laserfiche WebLink
1682 <br />public into believing tha±, this is privately owned property. I think <br />that perhaps in that we have given notice to zone it, whether the zoning <br />is effective, of course, is an open question, it would seem to me that <br />the solution of our problem is to just simply identify the broperty by <br />otivnership at the time the official map is printed un with no change in <br />the zoning. In other vrords, print the map as it is shown, and identify <br />the properties by stating; that ~~roperties with such and such a mark are <br />owned by the University of T,Zinnesota. ~~e have now given notice and we <br />would have to amend our proceedings here this evening. <br />Cartwrights If a formal hearing is established for a rezoning and if <br />at that hearing you decide not to complete the rezoning, then vrould the <br />property remain as it was originally zoned? <br />Galvin: Yes, because we are in fact amending our existing ordinance. <br />Dahlgren: Couldn't we make any adjustments in the map that are de- <br />cided upon from this discussion at the suggestions that have been brought <br />forth from the audience, revise the map, publish the ordinance again and <br />just repeat what we are doing tonight? <br />Galvin: That is correct. <br />Cartwright: I asked that because I think it vras mentioned but maybe it <br />wasn't clear tha+„ when tive proposed an R-3 zone up on Cleveland and when we <br />proposed a B-2 zone at Cleveland and La,rpenteur, it was based on the under- <br />standing that the University did, in fact, Alan to use that property for <br />such purposes. 1~te understand now that those were not plans but only ten- <br />tative ideas. The zoning we would propose now wouldn't apply. <br />Dean 1~~4acey: The R-3 vras a tentative plan. The 13-2 we never expected to <br />use that way. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to revise the zoning <br />at a later meeting, <br />Dahlpren: I think our intent here tonight is to accept these suggested <br />proposals a.nd then evaluate them, make whatever adjustments we feel are <br />adaptable in the map, and then adjust the lines, hold another meeting and <br />then adopt the amendment as we see best. <br />Galvins I didn't mean that it was impossible to change our course <br />of direction. If we feel that the meeting needs to be continued or if we <br />feel there are some necessary adjustments to the zoning map, under our <br />zoning ordinance, we would set the procedure we are g^ing through this <br />evening for a p~~riDd of from 10 to 30 days. ~r.re could set another meeting <br />for December .:21st. It is up to the Council to decide on the course of action. <br />T~Iilsen: V'Tell, dean Fenske, I ~~rant to point out that we did have those <br />conferences with the people on the main campus, and in those discussions, <br />we went so far as to discuss serv cing the area vrith sanitary sewer. For <br />example, constructing sanitary sewer from the Farm Campus vrhen the ~.~illage ' <br />already has sewer facilities at the Southeast corner of the University <br />property at Larnenteur and Cleveland would not be a vrise expenditure. <br />In other words, it would be improper use of public funds. I'm not <br />suggesting that that would be done. I'm simply pointing out the r_ecessity <br />for close cooperation between the University and the Village. <br />