My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-27-1989 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
12-27-1989 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 2:36:00 PM
Creation date
6/26/2013 2:33:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
120
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 />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />DECEMBER 14, 1989 <br />The City Planner replied that the City's ordinance <br />calls for an 800 foot separation from schools or <br />churches located within the City. It is his <br />interpretation that the ordinance was drafted in this <br />manner to address locations within the City of Little <br />Canada. The Planner pointed out that otherwise <br />Tierney's Liquor would be in violation of the same <br />ordinance. <br />Costa suggested that Low's concern would be more <br />appropriately addressed to the City Council. <br />Suchy again expressed concern about potential grading <br />on his property. <br />Pederson pointed out that if the Suchy property was <br />trespessed upon, the developer would be required to <br />correct any damage that might be done. <br />Dr. Krienke was concerned about the effect of this <br />project on the commercial properties along County Road <br />C. Krienke also was concerned about the rezoning which <br />took place on the back half of the commercial <br />properties and the resulting loss in property value. <br />Krienke felt that the loss in property value amounted <br />to about $35,000. <br />Krienke felt that it would be more appropriate to have <br />a buffer zone between the County Road C properties and <br />Iona Lane, however, felt the rezoning was an effort to <br />appease the Iona Lane property owners. Krienke felt <br />that the entire area should be zoned commercial, or the <br />property owners should be compensated for their loss of <br />property value. <br />Suchy suggested that the entire area be zoned R -1 <br />rather than commercial and a buffer be provided from <br />Dr. Krienke's clinic. <br />Krienke disagreed that County Road C was a good <br />location for R -1 property. <br />Krienke was concerned about Council action on the <br />proposal without knowing the residential road <br />location. Krienke pointed out that the road was to <br />have gone through his house, however, the developer has <br />since moved the road location further to the west. <br />Krienke reported that he had a purchase agreement with <br />the developer, he gave his tenants notice to vacate, <br />and when the purchase agreement lapsed, the developer <br />moved the road location and choose not to renew the <br />purchase agreement. <br />Page 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.