My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-25-89 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
01-25-89 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:49:43 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
MIMUTES <br />City Council <br />Jan. 25, 1989 <br />Rezoning City requir~e the pr~operty be rezoned to I-P at that time. <br />Fr•attal one <br />Pr•operty Fahey suggested that the City consider• rezoning the property to PUD <br />(Cont.) using the conditions of the I-1 District as the underlying zoning, <br />but r•equiring that if there is a lot split, the property must confor~m <br />to I-P standards. <br />The Council also discussed the possibility of placing a deed restriction <br />or restr•ictive covenants on the proper•ty. <br />The City Attor•ney repor•ted that if deed r~estr•ictions or• r•estrictive <br />covenants are used, the City should enter• into an agr~eement with <br />Frattalone that the restrictions could not be changed or• eliminated <br />unless there is agreement by the City. <br />Fahey felt the zoning of the property to PUD would be a cleaner alter~native. <br />Fahey pointed out that the City would have the option of being more liber~al <br />if it chose to be. <br />Fr•attalone pointed out that Councils change and he did not want to be <br />faced dealina with a different Council on this matter that ma,y not have <br />the same viewpoint as the existing Council. <br />The City Planner• stated that he would like the opportunity to consider <br />the effects a PUD zoning would have on the property as well as the <br />City. The Planner thouqht that the proposal might work, but wanted <br />more time to think about it. <br />There was no one else fr•om the general public pr•esent wishing to comment <br />on this matter. <br />P1r.Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION ~10. 89-1-33 - CLOSING THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING ON THE FRANI< FRATTALONE REQUEST FOR <br />REZONING OF PROPERTY ALONG SPRUCE STREET FROM <br />I-P DISTRICT TO I-1 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Scalze, LaValle, Collova, alesener. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declar•ed adopted. <br />This r•esolution appear•s in Resolution Book No. 21, Page 35. <br />Blesener~ felt that a depth of 300 feet back from South Owasso was <br />sufficent for the I-P lot. <br />Scalze felt that 350 feet in depth would be better•. <br />Blesener pointed out that 350 feet may prohibit the remainder of the <br />Frattalone or•operty from ever being split. Qlesener suggested that <br />Page -13- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.