My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC PACKET 07261994
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
1994
>
CC PACKET 07261994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 6:21:36 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 6:21:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
22
SP Folder Name
CC PACKETS 1994-1998
SP Name
CC PACKET 07261994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
STUDY PROCESS <br /> The Task Force began its process by requesting that each <br /> individual member of the Task Force identify areas of the City <br /> that are underdeveloped. The members were given a map of the <br /> City of St. Anthony' s Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit A) . The <br /> members then identified each property that they believed was <br /> underdeveloped. Each of these properties were ranked in terms of <br /> priority from 1 through 19 ( See Exhibit B) . <br /> In spite of the fact that 19 sites were identified by the members <br /> of the Task Force, the Task Force elected to limit its <br /> examination of the properties to the 10 properties which the Task <br /> Force members felt were the most important to develop or <br /> redevelop. Each Task Force member ranked the properties that <br /> that Task Force member believed needed development or <br /> redevelopment in order of importance. The weighted average of <br /> these votes was used to determine the 10 most significant <br /> properties . The analysis of potential uses was limited to the <br /> top 10 properties . Refer to Exhibit B for the remaining <br /> properties identified by the Task Force members for development <br /> or redevelopment. <br /> The potential uses for each of the 10 identified properties were <br /> listed in alphabetical order, however, the Task Force did not <br /> intend to suggest the potential uses were ranked in that order. <br /> The Task Force merely analyzed the potential uses to determine <br /> whether or not the use was consistent with the criteria set forth <br /> in the Mission Statement, to-wit: <br /> a. Will the use promote well kept surroundings? <br /> b. Will the use promote safe and cohesive neighborhoods? <br /> C. Will the use promote a viable and compatible business <br /> community? <br /> d. Will the use enhance market values? <br /> e. Will the use have a positive impact on School District <br /> No. 282? <br /> All of the potential uses were analyzed with respect to those <br /> criteria. The Task Force believed that the uses fit those <br /> criteria, except as specifically noted in the comments section of <br /> the Summary of Findings and Recommendations . <br /> All of the potential uses were identified and the comments with <br /> respect to those uses were created as a result of the consensus <br /> of the Task Force members in attendance at the particular meeting <br /> :hen the property was discussed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.