My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1983/03/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1983
>
Agenda Packets - 1983/03/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 9:57:05 AM
Creation date
3/13/2025 9:57:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/28/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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 PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting <br />Page 2 <br />January 7, 1981 <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />The Planning Commission tabled the request December <br />_S I". 1960, pending receipt of reports from the City <br />c "LLorney and City Engineer. <br />r1 <br />' Allrnrnoy Meyers mat with the Commission December <br />22, 1980. <br />Consulting Engineer Boxrud reviewed the applicant's <br />revised drainage plan received January 2, 1981 and <br />Short-Elliott-Ilendrickson recommendations. <br />Applicant Miller introduced his attorney, Bruce Malkerson, <br />Engineer Gary Comstock, and son Jim Miller. <br />Mution/Second: Fedor/McCarthy moved to take the Miller <br />proposal, Case 47-80, frum the table. <br />8 ayes 0 nays MOTION CARRIED <br />Coimnissioner Loeding cited Chapter 42 of the Municipal <br />rudr rlaLing the the zoning should be resolved prior to <br />subdivision of the parcel. <br />Tile Commission discussed the desirability of a P.U.D. <br />designation on the parcel. <br />Mt. Miller stated that lie is not in favor of the P.U.D.; <br />Mr. Malkerson noted that they would not be opposed to r� <br />the language in the resolution recommending such action <br />3 to the Council. <br />Mot.iou/Second: Loudiug/McCarthy moved to approved Husolu- <br />t.ion No. 02-81, recommending rezoning of. Miller Industrial <br />? Plat, as amended. (Exhibit B) <br />' 7 ayes 1 nay MOTION CARRIED <br />Nay Vote: <br />t <br />Glazer: Stated that he felt that the wetland cannot <br />be adequately protected by a blanket rezoning <br />It <br />of the parcel. <br />Motion/Second: Loeding/Miller moved to adopt Resolution <br />No. 03-81 (Exhibit C ) recommending denial of the <br />j Preliminary Miller Industrial Plat. <br />1 ayes 5 Nays MOTION FAILS <br />Nay Votes: <br />Breske: 1) Is concerned about it and wants to <br />preserve wetlands but for a reasonable <br />purpose. In this case for aesthetic <br />reasons, not recreational. To enhance <br />the development. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.