Laserfiche WebLink
february 8, 187N <br />Page 3 <br />~ Rose replied that with two-way traffic, corners, parked cars and so forth, he <br />~ould not advise it. <br />Mr. Ei~anheer stated that he had eliminated many of the variances he had asked <br />for earlier and that he felt the P7anning Commission had indicated they would <br />approve his development if some of the variances were eliminated. <br />Councilmember Baumgartner replied that there was abso7utety nothing in the minutec <br />of the previous Planning Comnission indicating thet any variances would be guaranteed <br />if the plan was approved. Comnission Member Burmeister added that the on7y variance <br />that had been generally agreed upon by the P7anning Comnisslon had been the R-2 <br />zoning. <br />MSD (Foss-Glazer) to approve the plat as presented. <br />3 nayes, <br />2 ayes <br />Acting Chairperson Mackeben stateo that he had voted against the r~iotion because <br />of Lot 6, since it seemed inevitable that it would someday be divided inCo two <br />77.6' substandard 7ots. <br />Comnissinn Member Burmeister stated that she had voted against the motion for the <br />same reason and that she also felt the other two lots, 7 and 8 could be made <br />into standard lots. <br />Comnission Member Foss stated that he did not feel Lot 6 should be taken into <br />r consideratian since it was standard, Camnission Member Durmeister replied that <br />I~ wM le it was standard, it was most likely going to be subdivided, wM ch would <br />~ make it substandard. <br />Comnission Member Giazer stated that while he had sECOnded the motion to get it <br />onto the floor for discussion, he had voted against it because he feit the issue <br />of Lot 6 should be reso7ved, and a fudgpment on the desirabillty of a 50' roadway <br />should be deferred to Staff. Ne also stated that he did not see any viabie alter- <br />natives other tha~ upgrading the rest of the 7ots at the expense ot Lot 6. <br />REAFFIP.MATION OF COMMISSION POLICY REGARDING UPGRADING OF ANOKA COUNtY AIRPORT <br />A rept•esentative of the League of Women Voters read their statemenC of support <br />for the Co~nission's policy regarding the upgrading of Anoka County Alrport and <br />asked that the Comnission restate or reaffirm that policy for them. <br />Councilmember BaumgarCner stated that while the Plar~ning Cortmissian did not finve <br />their own pollcy, they had ~ointly writte~ a resolution with Che City Council <br />regarding the upgrading of the airpot~t. <br />Actin^y ~hairpersun Mackeben stated that Resolut9un qA74 had been approved by the <br />City Council and made an official City resolutlon. <br />MSP (Giazer-Mackeben) that the Planning Comnission reaffirm it's support of <br />P.esolution ~874, dated Plovember 28, 1977 in opposition to the expansion of the <br />~ Anoka County Airport, Janes Fie1d. 5 ayes <br />