My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-2003 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
02-26-2003 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2014 2:34:26 PM
Creation date
6/22/2012 9:54:01 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
MINUTES <br />AMENDMENT <br />TO PUD — <br />2598 RICE <br />STREET - <br />HAIR FOR <br />LIFE <br />PROFESSIONALS <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA <br />FEBRUARY 13, 2003 <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning <br />Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 13th day of <br />February, 2003 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 <br />Little Canada Road in said City. <br />Vice Chair Dan Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and <br />the following members of the Planning Commission were present at roll <br />call: <br />PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Scott Barraclough <br />Mr. Tom Duray <br />Mr. Dan Knudsen <br />Mr. Tom Roycraft <br />Ms. Kathy Weihe <br />Mr. Tom Wojcik <br />ABSENT: Mr. John Keis <br />ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner <br />Mr. Jeremy Brodin, Cable TV Producer <br />The minutes of the January 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting <br />were approved as submitted. <br />Mr. Vern Cole, Hair for Life Professionals, appeared before the <br />Commission questioning why an Amendment to a PUD is necessary <br />in order for his business to locate at 2598 Rice Street. Cole reported <br />that he purchased the building and was issued a Certificate of <br />Occupancy. He came into the City requesting a signature on an <br />application for the Board of Cosmetology, and this signature was <br />denied him. Cole pointed out that the property in question is zoned B -3 <br />and he is not satisfied that the Amendment to the PUD is necessary. <br />The City Planner reported that the property is zoned B -3, but was <br />developed as a PUD. The purpose of the PUD was to allow a series of <br />small, individually owned office buildings located on private property and <br />not abutting public streets. One of the review criteria that was used was a <br />very careful calculation of how much parking is available to the specific <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.