|
~,~,~~~•tt?kMarr. ..., :_ . - . _.
<br />MOUND5 VIEW PI,ANNIN4 COMMISSION
<br />Pagu 3
<br />--------------------------°----°---"--'-------°
<br />~ Fador etated }he reaeon for voting nay on the
<br />maSn motion ::ae bcceuss he xoreeees a.ll kin3s ef
<br />probleme created by development of thia margiuel
<br />area. Durmeistnr etated she wante to eee whah the
<br />City foresees for the area ae to how it ehould be
<br />developad. Olazer aonc~rred.
<br />Olazer moved to reaommend to Cuunail they aon-
<br />aider purahaeing thie praperty with the intent of
<br />preeerving an exieting water dete~tion baein. If
<br />s}udy proves this detention baein aen be modified
<br />or raduced in aixa~ I would reoommend thu Counci.
<br />paea thfe information back to the Planning Commie-
<br />sl.on so ae to reconsider this developmen~. It was
<br />seconded by Fedor.
<br />4 ayes
<br />The motton faile. 4 nays
<br />(Nay votess MeCarthy, Haake,
<br />Blanchard and Goebel)
<br />Goebel gave hie reaaon for voting nay was becaune
<br />he believes these developera have complied with
<br />the requirements of the City.
<br />Burmeister movad to amend •the motion that PZanning
<br />~ Commiseion aould like to~have tl~a Council direct ~ ,
<br />I
<br />i
<br />~
<br />~
<br />I
<br />I
<br />~
<br />~
<br />i
<br />~I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />. .. ~,.. ,. .
<br />, . , ~_:,._.. - , ,.. ' . ~. . .., ,._. .,,..,.... ;e.~,..~a~~~~,a.~.i~:,~,;.... N ~.,r.~:.-.;., ~ . .,„ ...
<br />.,., ~.. . ...~,.. , ,,..
<br />~'~Slv. Hui-~.~ ~.., ,,::,y .
<br />Staff, or an appropriate body., to do a etudy of
<br />natursl drainsge areae that wll7. have to be re-
<br />tained in the City and not be builY upon.,,It wae
<br />aeaonded by Fbeemore.
<br />6 ayea
<br />Tha amendment failed beaause ' 3 nays'
<br />, the main motion failed.
<br />(Nny votea: MeCarthy~'~Blanchard~ Goebel)
<br />Haake adviAed the developere that *.heir requeet
<br />could ga before the City Council for thnir approval.
<br />Mr, fbetag wanted it on record and communicated to -
<br />Council that ttey have followed exp.ltcitly what
<br />the lacr requires.
<br />Naake moved that Council direat qualifisd pro-
<br />fesaionel experte in whatevar they feel nacessary
<br />to come up with a plan for Mounde View regarding
<br />wetlande, flood glains, holding areas, and green-
<br />belt aroae. They ahould bear in mind the need of
<br />these,ereas to bo preserved~so au to ancwer our „
<br />,~ atorm eawer problama also. The Planning Commie-
<br />aion can than continue in our direative of
<br />drar(ing up a comprehaneive plan For Mounds V?ew,
<br />~ enabling ue to logically deoignate City land use.
<br />In the interim, we went the9e qaalified profea-
<br />sional experts to,aom:: up with tentativa eites they
<br />would conaider fon poeeible eolution Yo our problem.
<br />It w~s eeconded by Hurmeister. 8 ayee
<br />0 nays
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />Deaembar 19, 1979
<br />---------`-------------
<br />3. DYNAMIC DEVELOPERS (aont.)
<br />, '~ ' . ~~~.r .. , .~.
<br />
<br />~ _'
<br />, ~ ,
<br />
<br />, ~ ~~
<br />„
<br /> ,
<br /> ,
<br /> ,`
<br /> !
<br />
|