CCMin_53Jul7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~~~ Mock petition discussed - L. T. Gasink In connection with denial of the Pock petition, Mr. Gasinlc inquired and was informed as to who were voting uembere of .the council. He then asked as to what is going to happen to property in the Larpenteur-Albert area other than Reller~s, and what atep$ a resident should follow if he wanted his property zoned commercial. George 0avoulia said the matter of having a Dairy lAtay on the Rees property at Larpenteur and Snelling was referred to the Planning Co2mnisaion for recommendation, and asked xhy the same procedure was not followed with respect to the Keller proposition when over 50 per cent of the people affected signed the rezoning petition. Council members The following council members then stated their positions - Lindig stated that the Keller property is zoned and operated Lindig as commercial and that he does not believe commercial property should be rezoned to residence "A " . ~~ // Shaver reported that he had view~'the property and that it is obviously a residential area and that this corner was zoned commercial when the original zoning plan was adopted. He said it was an error to do so, inasmuch as it is Mapot" coning not 3havor in conformity with good planning practice. He said the build- - ing on the property is new a residence used only partially for business purposes. Shavor then cited references on pages 1, 2 and 11~ of the Zoning Gydde published by the League of Minnesota Municipalities, pointing out that - Minn. ?,vague (1) Zoning coriveya no vested rights to the individual property reterencsa owner since under the police power the intesvsts of the communitg as a whole are paramount. (2) That zoning should be flexible to meet new arxi changing cor~ditiona of society at at~y given time. (3) Zoning tends to protect property values by preserving the character of residential districts and insuring the orderly development of various other districts. (!~) pSpot" zoning teach to destroy the integrity of a zoning plan. IIrges referral Shavor contended that the above factors were not given proper to Planning consideration in connection with the conncil~s action in denying Commission the Mock petition, and asked for reconsideration and for referral of the matter to the Planning Commi.saion for study and recommen- dation.