My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1983/05/09
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
Agenda Packets - 1983/05/09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2025 3:31:39 PM
Creation date
3/12/2025 3:26:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/9/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council �', @ �q',' r'r)n� I April 25, 1983 <br />Regular Meeting---------- -F_1 ^_;- _- - -.� 1�- --- ---Page-Three <br />--------------- ----- <br />Director Johnson pointed out the subdivision is for <br />a group of buildings, not for each of the proposed <br />units. <br />Councilmember Hankner noted that the majority of <br />the zoning in the area is R-2 and R-3. <br />Mayor McCarty stated he felt the density would be <br />too high with townhouses and asked Mr. Dalberg if <br />he would be agreeable to having R-2 lots on Silver <br />Lake Road. <br />Mr. Dalberg replied that he had originally asked <br />for R-2. <br />Mayor McCarty stated the Council does not agree <br />with the Planning Commission recommendation, as the <br />Council is following the Comp Plan and the Planning <br />Commission seems to have deviated from it. He <br />stated Mr. Dalberg has the option to withdraw <br />his request and go back to the Planning Commission <br />if he would like. <br />Director Johnson explained the differences in <br />zoning between R-1, R-2 and R-3. <br />i Mr. Holmes stated he was against R-2 and would like <br />R-1 znni.ng, <br />Mr. Zuidema stated he was not in favor of R-2, as <br />it would be rental property. <br />Mr. Wolf stated he did not want the development. <br />Motion/Second: McCarty/Linke to approve the first <br />reading of Ordinance No. 339, amending the R-3 to <br />R-2, in compliance with the Comp Plan, with the <br />applicant's consent and agreementfrom R-1 to R-2, <br />rather than R-1 to R-3, and taking into account <br />the recommendation of the Planning Commission, <br />to change the zoning from R-1, and waive the <br />reading. <br />4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrie, <br />Motion/Second: McCarty/Hankner to table Resolu- <br />tions No. 1597 and 1598 until such time as Staff <br />has the opportunity to confer with the applicant <br />on these resolutions and redraw the development <br />agreement. <br />�' 4 ayes 0 nays Motion Carrier <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.