My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCMin_91Jan28
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
199x
>
1991
>
PCMin_91Jan28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2009 2:41:10 PM
Creation date
6/25/2009 9:36:39 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />the property to the project boundary. Further, <br />where such extension of a project takes place, <br />extraordinary setbacks and landscaping be required <br />to mitigate neighborhood impacts. <br />This was included to protect the surrounding residential <br />neighborhoods in the event that a redevelopment proposal <br />for the SE corner is proposed beyond the existing <br />commercial zone. <br />3) Economic Development, Policy #5 <br />In the event that a portion of the State <br />Fairgrounds property becomes available or an <br />LRT station is located in the proximity of the <br />Snelling and Larpenteur intersection, allow <br />the entire area, but not a portion, of <br />Hollywood Court to be redeveloped with mixed <br />uses as part of the Snelling and Larpenteur <br />retail core. <br />This was done to address redevelopment if a substantial <br />change occurs in the surrounding land use. <br />4) Economic Development, Policy #1 <br />• Restrict developments throughout the City to <br />three stories or 35 feet in height. <br />This was retained to keep the overall low-rise profile <br />of the City and, if necessary, to use as a negotiating <br />tool for the southeast corner of Snelling and <br />Larpenteur. <br />Mr. Warren Peterson, 1373 Hoyt, questioned draft commercial <br />policy #6 relating to required buffering, screening, and <br />landscaping. He questioned how the determination of <br />"feasibility" is made regarding the buffering and screening <br />required between existin commercial uses and residential areas. <br />Planner Hoyt explaine is was done on a case by case basis. <br />Chairman Boche replied more buffering requirements were placed <br />on new than on existing uses because existing land uses may need <br />to be termed a nuisance to require change. Councilman Cernia <br />stated that, even then, a nuisance that ideally requires <br />screening may be impossible due to space between the two <br />conflicting land uses. How to decide what is fair and on an <br />equitable basis must go through due process. Chairman Boche <br />explained the difference between the planning process and an <br />ordinance is that an ordinance is enforceable through the <br />courts. <br />Mr. Mark Ascerno, 1871 Tatum, made three suggestions for <br />4 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.