CC PACKET 06191990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 11 1 from competing businessmen. He also noted that the owner of Apache, Mr. 2 Cavanaugh, who in the past had appeared before the Commission to defend 3 every sign variance request or other changes at Apache, had not seen fit 4 to come to defend this proposal or to provide input to the discussions. 5 The fact that Mr. Cavanaugh appeared to be holding letters of opposition 6 to the proposal which were written by his own tenants had not impressed 7 the Commissioner either. 8 Commissioner Faust, who lives on Silver Lake, said he did not consider 9 the discussion of the water problems to be germane to the zoning change 10 and couldn't agree that denying the proposal was the right way of 11 solving those problems, which could probably only be solved through 12 storm sewer assessments on the users. The Commissioner indicated .the 13 main reason he would be concerned about the project would be the 14 potential for loss of control in planning for the future. He said he 15 perceived the applicants had presented a very attractive proposal which 16 might be nice to have in the City, but he was worried that in spite of 17 stipulations which might be put on this particular use permit, control 18 might be lost over similar requests five or ten years from now. 19 Therefore, in terms of long range planning, he said he would have to 20 oppose the ordinance change. 21 Commission Recommendation • 22 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Franzese to recommend denial by the City 23 Council of the request for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of St. 24 Anthony which would provide for a self-service storage as a specifically 25 listed conditional use in a "C" Commercial District, finding that: 26 1. The proposal doesn't meet all three conditions which must be 27 satisfied before a conditional use can be permitted, specifically 28 #3 in the petition for conditional use permit which requires the 29 use to be necessary and desirable at the proposed location to 30 provide a service or facility which is in the interest of public 31 convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the 32 neighborhood or community. 33 2 . The neighbors to this site have expressed a real concern about the 34 desirability of this facility and the necessity for it in their 35 immediate area or location. 36 3. Although it might be true that the facility might be a handy 37 storage area for a lot of people, it wouldn't necessarily 38 contribute to the general welfare of a lot of people in the 39 neighborhood or the community at this location. 40 4. Therefore, if the proposal .doesn't meet the criteria established 41 for a conditional use permit, there doesn't appear to be any 42 justification for amending the St. Anthony Zoning Ordinance for the • 43 proposal.