My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL PACKET 08181992
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1992
>
PL PACKET 08181992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 3:44:10 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 3:44:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
15
SP Folder Name
PL PACKETS 1992
SP Name
PL PACKET 08181992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
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
1 PLANNING COMMISSION • <br /> 2 JULY 21 , 1992 <br /> 3 PAGE 2 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Staff response to the highest and best use for monetary <br /> 6 considerations were light industrial and for aesthetics , open <br /> 7 space. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 The property appraisals have not been received. It was noted <br /> 10 in the staff response that appraisals would not relate to <br /> 11 determining the appropriate use of the property. They can be <br /> 12 used by staff in negotiating a price for the two current <br /> 13 structures and land. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 The size of the two newly created lots is as follows ; Lot #1 , <br /> 16 closest to Unocal is 10 , 000 square feet (approximately 100 ' by <br /> 17 100 ' ) . Lot #2 , closest to existing homes is 13 , 125 square feet <br /> 18 (approximately 75 ' by 125 ' ) and (approximately 50 ' by 150 ' x <br /> 19 2 ) . <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Under current Minnesota property tax laws and depending on <br /> 22 valuation, commercial and light industrial would realize more <br /> 23 tax revenue than single family residential . <br /> 24 <br /> 25 In response to a Planning Commission member ' s inquiry <br /> 26 regarding the Council ' s preference for zoning of these two <br /> 27 parcels , staff replied this is not_ known . The rationale is • <br /> 28 that the City Council would prefer not to bias the Planning <br /> 29 Commission' s recommendation. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 The consultant from BRW selected the R-1 zone based on the <br /> 32 input from members of the South End Task Force. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 The Chairperson felt, the responses were quite clear and <br /> 35 inquired if any Commission members had further questions or <br /> 36 comments . There were none. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 The City Manager stated that the phrase "most appropriate use" <br /> 39 is preferable to the phrase "highest and best use. " A planning <br /> 40 and zoning concept applicable to that use of land which will <br /> 41 promote the greatest good for the greatest number and is in <br /> 42 the best interests of the community as a whole is the <br /> 43 definition given as the "most appropriate use. " <br /> 44 <br /> 45 He felt the South End Task Force has supplied very good input <br /> 46 and had well rounded representation which reflected various <br /> 47 segments of the community; business people, residents from <br /> 48 throughout the City and interested parties . <br /> 49 <br /> 50 The City Council will consider the extension of the Tax <br /> 51 Increment District at it ' s August 28th meeting. <br /> 52 •53 Using Plan D, the City Manager reviewed various aspects of the <br /> 54 development . A roadway is being considered for the present <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.