My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PCAgenda_91Feb25
FalconHeights
>
Committees and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
199x
>
1991
>
PCAgenda_91Feb25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2009 3:23:35 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 2:11:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
r~ <br />~~ <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 exi~sti~n commercial uses and residential areas. <br />Planner Hoyt explaine3 ftFiis 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 />changes. The first was the intent of draft neighborhood policy <br />#4. He asked that it be more positively addressed by changing <br />it to read, an rou homes in residential districts should be <br />s aced not less an 1 2 mi e e ween omes. Secon , Mr. <br />Ascerno a so as a or c arification o t e phrase, "to <br />accommodate a 1990's lifestyle" He felt the term was <br />unnecessarily vague. Third, Mr. Ascerno asked that draft <br />Environment policy #8 include landscaping in existing <br />development as well as new development and redevelopment be <br />reviewed for landscaping for solar maximization. He also felt <br />that #10, "promote a curbside recycling program and encourage <br />on-site management of yard wastes" should include a statement <br />regarding encouraging recycling of yard wastes that do not lend <br />themselves to on-site recycling. Chairman Boche told Mr. <br />Ascerno that his comments would be taken under consideration. <br />Mrs. Elizabeth Close asked about burying overhead wires. <br />Planner Hoyt responded that Public Utilities draft policy #3 <br />reads, "Require the burying of overhead utility lines in all <br />areas .wherever and whenever .feasible." <br />4 <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.